Will a European-style abortion law please pro-life voters?

[TitanTiger 20,498]

You're right. The Democrats have made ample and obvious efforts to position themselves in the political center to center-left and relegate the Republicrazies to irrelevance for the foreseeable future.  All the concerns about handing over the entire Federal government to Democratic control are unfounded.

I guess it's just all in their heads.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

You're right. The Democrats have made ample and obvious efforts to position themselves in the political center to center-left and relegate the Republicrazies to irrelevance for the foreseeable future.  All the concerns about handing over the entire Federal government to Democratic control are unfounded.

I guess it's just all in their heads.

That’s a chicken s*** response I frankly didn’t expect from you. But I guess if you can’t back up what you feel with facts, it’s understandable.

Democrats have a messaging problem. Huge one. They have too many Ivy leaguers as advisors. They need to hire more folks from red/purple states from state schools who are less arrogant. They need relentless effective messaging. And there’s policies I’m sure they could tweak or modify more substantially. None of that, however, strengthens the case you stated at the outset. 

[TitanTiger 20,498]

I think it's more than a messaging problem.  I think it's a governance problem.  When you have the L.A. Times cheering on the president for governing as a progressive I think it's pretty telling.  They don't see it as a bug or an anomaly, but a feature.  And it's a feature that gives people who might not usually or at least automatically support a Democrat in elections pause.  I don't think he's actually behaved as moderate as his persona would have led me to believe.

The Republicans sold out to their crazies a while back.  The Democrats don't have to.  Frankly, they barely have to listen to them at all given the shift by the GOP.  I wish they'd do so more obviously.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

I think it's more than a messaging problem.  I think it's a governance problem.  When you have the L.A. Times cheering on the president for governing as a progressive I think it's pretty telling.  They don't see it as a bug or an anomaly, but a feature.  And it's a feature that gives people who might not usually or at least automatically support a Democrat in elections pause.  I don't think he's actually behaved as moderate as his persona would have led me to believe.

The Republicans sold out to their crazies a while back.  The Democrats don't have to.  Frankly, they barely have to listen to them at all given the shift by the GOP.  I wish they'd do so more obviously.

Progressive is such a vague term I once embraced it myself. “Progress”? Sure, I’m for progress. Now I avoid and am assiduously wary of labels folks loosely throw around. I’m more interested in concrete facts. Here again your “argument” is the LA Times cheered the label.

What are the damn facts? A bipartisan infrastructure bill? Bipartisan support for Ukraine & Israel? A bipartisan bill to support making computer chips in the USA? You said centrists don’t see his POLICIES as “normal.” Yet, when pressed you can’t make the case and instead take cheap shots when I’m trying to understand what you mean by that assertion.

And even this is an overstatement, as i demonstrated with a policy you then conveniently ignored:

And then his full-on embrace of trans cult

 

Trans activists aren’t happy with his policy on that at all. I wish his messaging (and understanding) on the issue was better, but the actual policy I excerpted is pretty middle of the road.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

21 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Progressive is such a vague term I once embraced it myself. “Progress”? Sure, I’m for progress. Now I avoid and am assiduously wary of labels folks loosely throw around. I’m more interested in concrete facts. Here again your “argument” is the LA Times cheered the label.

I'm using the label because that's what Democrats have moved to in lieu of "liberal" which was pretty successfully associated with things like being weak on crime, big government, wacko on social issues, and so on.

I'd also argue that they moved to "progressive" because they've become fundamentally illiberal the last decade or so, but that's neither here nor there.

My assertion is that while some of Trump's increasing of the deficit could be explained (by many) in terms of tax cuts that did benefit a lot of middle class people and spending that had to happen for a once in a century pandemic that cratered the economy, Biden is spending at very high rates even without the pandemic as an excuse.

 

21 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

What are the damn facts? A bipartisan infrastructure bill? Bipartisan support for Ukraine & Israel? A bipartisan bill to support making computer chips in the USA? You said centrists don’t see his POLICIES as “normal.” Yet, when pressed you can’t make the case and instead take cheap shots when I’m trying to understand what you mean by that assertion.

Is it your honest opinion that Biden is governing as a moderate?  Or is he governing moderate on some things and more as a progressive on others?  How much of the moderate side is due to being held back by a Republican Senate?  Do you think he'd show similar restraint if the Dems took the WH, House and Senate this fall?

 

21 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

And even this is an overstatement, as i demonstrated with a policy you then conveniently ignored:

And then his full-on embrace of trans cult

Trans activists aren’t happy with his policy on that at all. I wish his messaging (and understanding) on the issue was better, but the actual policy I excerpted is pretty middle of the road.

Ok, I'll moderate the comment to "too much embrace of the trans ideology and messaging."  Not "full-on."  He's not as batshit crazy and radical as trans activists, though that's about one of the highest bars to clear in existence.

[CoffeeTiger 5,114]

The Democrats are never going to become an attractive party for highly Conservative independents, and that's ok. 

People like Titan recognize the GOP has gone crazy, but they also know they are still socially and economically Conservative and wish they had a party to vote for that aligns with their wishes. 

Nothing wrong with that. 

.....but I don't want the Democrats to become the type of party that a voter like Titan would be glad to vote for.....because that would mean the Democrats would just be indistinguishable from  the early-mid 2000's Republican party, which isn't what a vast majority of the Democrat base in on board for.

 

[TexasTiger 12,947]

37 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Is it your honest opinion that Biden is governing as a moderate?

I mentioned the relative uselessness of labels in making a meaningful assessment of governance. These days all a Republican has to do to be portrayed as a “moderate” is conclude Trump committed impeachable offenses. They can hold any policy decision as long as they check that box.

As you’ve demonstrated, a Democrat can pass bipartisan legislation repeatedly in a highly polarized and partisan environment and they still are deemed unworthy of the label.

Think about this— it’s an insane measure of where one stands on policy because it’s easy to “earn” it on one side, and damn difficult on the other.

37 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

How much of the moderate side is due to being held back by a Republican Senate?

Shouldn’t the willingness to work effectively with the other side be a key measure of moderation? Perhaps THE key measure? So, yes. Of course he’s governing largely from the broad center. I’ve given you multiple opportunities to prove otherwise and you haven’t— and you’re a bright guy. I would think if there was a case to be made, you could make it.

Let me ask you— what specific, concrete things would he need to do differently for you to consider his governance this term moderate?

[TitanTiger 20,498]

14 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

...but I don't want the Democrats to become the type of party that a voter like Titan would be glad to vote for.....because that would mean the Democrats would just be indistinguishable from  the early-mid 2000's Republican party, which isn't what a vast majority of the Democrat base in on board for.

I don't think I'd make many mid-2000s Republicans happy either.  I'm in favor of universal health care, paid parental leave, and closing of tax loopholes that allow millionaires and billionaires to be taxed at lower rates than people who are primarily paid through salary/hourly wages. I'm in favor of incentivizing businesses as well as colleges and universities to have on-site child care or helping people be able to finish their education even if they get pregnant and have children.  In short, I'm pretty economically flexible if I think it's a worthwhile investment in people, furthers a culture of life and such.

I'm also in favor of more restrictions on high powered, rapid-fire rifles such as AR-15s, red flag laws and other restrictions.

I think that undocumented immigrants who have been here for several years with gainful employment and no felonies should be given a path to citizenship even as I think we need to get a handle on the southern border and know/document every single person who comes through.

If I thought about it long enough, I could come up with some more examples.

I want an alternative to the GOP - yes, as presently constituted.  But I'm not clamoring for a return to the GWB years either.  I ended up opposing the Iraq War and our rationale for going in there in the first place. 

[TexasTiger 12,947]

32 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm in favor of universal health care, paid parental leave, and closing of tax loopholes that allow millionaires and billionaires to be taxed at lower rates than people who are primarily paid through salary/hourly wages. I'm in favor of incentivizing businesses as well as colleges and universities to have on-site child care or helping people be able to finish their education even if they get pregnant and have children.  In short, I'm pretty economically flexible if I think it's a worthwhile investment in people, furthers a culture of life and such.

A lot of folks and media might call you…progressive.😉

[TitanTiger 20,498]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

A lot of folks and media might call you…progressive.😉

Ha!

At some point I just decided that it was impossible to sign up for the whole slate of policy positions from either party and I was just going to stop trying.  Sometimes Democrats/progressives have the better take on an issue, sometimes conservatives/Republicans do, and other times some position that borrows from both is best.  I also find it impossible to sign on to either party's positions on every issue and follow Jesus.  And that's what I'm striving to filter my politics through now.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

16 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I ended up opposing the Iraq War and our rationale for going in there in the first place. 

I think these were our earliest arguments. 😉

[homersapien 11,385]

Seems to me, the criticisms of Biden and/or Democrats are largely based on subjective, emotional perceptions of many issues - particularly social issues - rather than actual policy. (Kudos to Texas Tiger for pointing this out.)

Today's social media environment only reinforces the effectiveness of such subjective/emotional strategies from the right.  I can only hope the Democrats find an effective way to counter this. 

I really think there is a receptive audience for progressive policies among the majority of voters - as Titan illustrated by listing (progressive) policies he supports.

Meanwhile, foreign policy becomes more and more important. 

Decisions made over the next 4 years will determine America's future for the rest of this century. Current Republican policies will be a disaster for us.  Biden is trying to negotiate a very difficult path, but he is generally correct in his strategy.  Trump will be disaster regarding foreign (and domestic) policy.  In that regard, this election will most certainly be a "binary choice".

 

[TitanTiger 20,498]

30 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I think these were our earliest arguments. 😉

I believe you're right.  You saw that whole transformation in real time.  

[Aufan59 65]

On 4/17/2024 at 2:33 PM, TitanTiger said:

I think there's a case to be made for incrementalism.  Move the default toward a culture of valuing human life over treating it as disposable, but do so in steps that the culture can handle.  Jarring, radical leaps from one set of norms to a much different set in one fell swoop tends to unnerve people and make them reactionary or susceptible to fear mongering.

I also think there's some validity to the idea that the second you start carving out exceptions where it's ok to kill innocent human beings (especially based on arbitrary time limits, rape/incest, etc), you've cut the legs out from under your own position that it's a human rights issue in the first place.  

I think that many pro-lifers who take a stricter stance and fight for the narrowest exceptions such as life of the mother are coming from a good place, but in practicality by moving too swiftly toward those restrictions without doing the hard work of converting hearts and minds, they will end up losing the battle politically.  The impulse to strike while the iron is hot and you have the advantage may ultimately backfire.  So maybe - politically at least - the better approach is to establish laws around a new consensus that is miles better than what we had over the last 50 years, even if it's not everything it can be.  Then get to work attacking the various societal circumstances that often drive women to consider abortion as the only alternative.  Make sound arguments and move people toward seeing the reasonable, humane choice is to choose life, then perhaps revisit the issue and see if we can have more consensus around further changes to the law that save more.

Incrementalism is a new concept to me but completely unarguable.  America was founded on individual liberty, in a gigantic, revolutionary, non-incremental step.  It was not founded in “steps that the culture can handle”.  That never would have worked.

There are many examples of this, and Roe v. Wade is a great one.  It did not establish “exceptions where it’s ok to kill innocent human beings”.  It established that a mother and child have perfectly equal rights, and neither one is entitled to the other person’s body.

Culture says that the person inside the womb has more rights than the person with the womb.  But the founding principles of America say they both are equal people.

 

 

 

 

[TitanTiger 20,498]

10 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

Incrementalism is a new concept to me but completely unarguable.  America was founded on individual liberty, in a gigantic, revolutionary, non-incremental step.  It was not founded in “steps that the culture can handle”.  That never would have worked.

There are many examples of this, and Roe v. Wade is a great one.  It did not establish “exceptions where it’s ok to kill innocent human beings”.  It established that a mother and child have perfectly equal rights, and neither one is entitled to the other person’s body.

Culture says that the person inside the womb has more rights than the person with the womb.  But the founding principles of America say they both are equal people.

The second you give one human being the power to kill another innocent human being, you've firmly committed to a paradigm where mother and child do not have perfectly equal rights.

[Aufan59 65]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

The second you give one human being the power to kill another innocent human being, you've firmly committed to a paradigm where mother and child do not have perfectly equal rights.

I agree in principle, but we must be careful with how you define “power to kill”.

 

In the case of abortion, the mother is not granting the use of her body to another human.  That human is free to live their life without the mother.

 

[TitanTiger 20,498]

23 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

I agree in principle, but we must be careful with how you define “power to kill”.

 

In the case of abortion, the mother is not granting the use of her body to another human.  That human is free to live their life without the mother.

That's quite the linguistic gymnast routine there.  If that logic is true, why do we prosecute parents for allowing a baby to starve to death?  Isn't the infant free to live their life without the mom or dad having to be responsible for feeding them?

Look, if your position is simply that the mother's rights are more important, just say that.  At least that's an honest take even if I disagree with it.  But this other thing is nonsense.

[Aufan59 65]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

That's quite the linguistic gymnast routine there.  If that logic is true, why do we prosecute parents for allowing a baby to starve to death?  Isn't the infant free to live their life without the mom or dad having to be responsible for feeding them?

Look, if your position is simply that the mother's rights are more important, just say that.  At least that's an honest take even if I disagree with it.  But this other thing is nonsense.

There are many ways from preventing a baby from starving, including methods that don’t give the baby rights to another person’s body.  Maybe you have heard of baby formula?

 

Feel free to presume my position, but it is based on all humans having equal rights.  Which is what America was founded on and what Roe v Wade was decided on.

 

[TitanTiger 20,498]

Just now, Aufan59 said:

There are many ways from preventing a baby from starving, including methods that don’t give the baby rights to another person’s body.  Maybe you have heard of baby formula?

Ok, so I can just sit a can of powdered formula next to them and I'm done?  Or are you going to make me mix it with water, put it in a bottle and hold the damn thing for them too?

 

Just now, Aufan59 said:

Feel free to presume my position, but it is based on all humans having equal rights.  Which is what America was founded on and what Roe v Wade was decided on.\

I'm not presuming.  I'm calling what you claim to be your position illogical.

[Aufan59 65]

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Ok, so I can just sit a can of powdered formula next to them and I'm done?  Or are you going to make me mix it with water, put it in a bottle and hold the damn thing for them too?

 

I'm not presuming.  I'm calling what you claim to be your position illogical.

My point is that no human should be forced to give up their bodily autonomy for another person.
 

You’re making a false comparison to parental duties, which don’t require giving up bodily autonomy to fulfill. 

 

[TitanTiger 20,498]

3 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

My point is that no human should be forced to give up their bodily autonomy for another person.
 

You’re making a false comparison to parental duties, which don’t require giving up bodily autonomy to fulfill. 

I'm really not.  You're forcing me to use my body (that bottle ain't gonna levitate at the baby's mouth, much less mix itself), my time, my energy, and my money to keep another human being alive under threat of law.  

[Aufan59 65]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm really not.  You're forcing me to use my body (that bottle ain't gonna levitate at the baby's mouth, much less mix itself), my time, my energy, and my money to keep another human being alive under threat of law.  

I don’t think you are familiar with safe haven laws.  Mothers are allowed to legally give up their new borns to the state.

 

 

 

 

 

[TitanTiger 20,498]

Just now, Aufan59 said:

I don’t think you are familiar with safe haven laws.  Mothers are allowed to legally give up their new borns to the state.

I'm quite familiar.  Perhaps you're not familiar with adoption laws.  Mothers are allowed legally to give up a child they don't want or don't feel able to keep for adoption.

Parental duties start before the child is born.  It's one of the reasons a father who assaults the mother while the child is in the womb and causes a miscarriage is subject to criminal penalties, up to and including murder.  It's why if a mother causes harm to her unborn child by abusing illegal drugs, she is also liable for criminal penalties.  All these duties don't magically come into play because a head pokes out the opening of a vagina.
 

[Aufan59 65]

14 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm quite familiar.  Perhaps you're not familiar with adoption laws.  Mothers are allowed legally to give up a child they don't want or don't feel able to keep for adoption.

Parental duties start before the child is born.  It's one of the reasons a father who assaults the mother while the child is in the womb and causes a miscarriage is subject to criminal penalties, up to and including murder.  It's why if a mother causes harm to her unborn child by abusing illegal drugs, she is also liable for criminal penalties.  All these duties don't magically come into play because a head pokes out the opening of a vagina.
 

We agree on adoption!  There is no legal obligation for a mother to giver up her bodily autonomy for her child.

Also, none of these examples counter my point that the woman and child are both people with equal rights. 
 

I agree that these people should be punished as if the baby in womb was a person.

I don’t think you aren’t paying attention but my argument is that the baby is a person with equal rights!

I think you might be agreeing with me!

Edited April 19 by Aufan59

[TitanTiger 20,498]

1 hour ago, Aufan59 said:

We agree on adoption!

Well at least that’s one thing. 
 

1 hour ago, Aufan59 said:

There is no legal obligation for a mother to giver up her bodily autonomy for her child.

Unless you give a child up for adoption via Safe Haven or otherwise, you give up your bodily autonomy (as well as other kinds of autonomy) whether the child is in the womb or out of it. You do not get to avoid these responsibilities in either situation and cause the death of another human being as a result. 
 

1 hour ago, Aufan59 said:

Also, none of these examples counter my point that the woman and child are both people with equal rights. 

The problem isn’t the idea  the problem is that you aren’t actually arguing with consistency that both humans have equal rights. 

 

1 hour ago, Aufan59 said:

I agree that these people should be punished as if the baby in womb was a person.

I’m glad, but the point is that we have parental duties to children even before they are born, not just after. 
 

1 hour ago, Aufan59 said:

I don’t think you aren’t paying attention but my argument is that the baby is a person with equal rights!

I think you might be agreeing with me!

You really aren’t and no I’m not.