Let's say that you're absolutely correct about everything. Even from your own POV, making that argument is a political loser, because it enables the kind of strawmen that the pro-choice fanatics use to oppose any restrictions on abortion.
If I accepted that there is a 'baby' from the moment of conception, I may agree to ban abortions for convenience, but obviously, a rape victim did not ask to get pregnant. It's an act of wanton cruelty to force such a thing on that victim, based on what is ultimately a philosophical matter that cannot be proven one way or the other.
The effectiveness of an argument is measured by the extent to which it moves people towards your side. Obviously, if you make an argument that repels people, no matter how logically valid it is or you think it is, that "negates its effectiveness".
There are no prizes for being morally correct, though I wouldn't argue that people who want to ban abortion in cases of rape are moral.
It would be equally applicable to a Roman Senator who in 149 BC would say "hey, maybe we shouldn't destroy Carthage because they haven't done anything wrong".
Making arguments is trying to get the audience closer to your POV, nothing more.
Arguments are only relevant to debate among a people with a shared cultural framework, and culture is downstream from law. Progressives have been winning for many decades now by simply imposing their will and the populace accepts it later. This is a war.
The only debate the average normie should see is between ourguy and a carefully selected crazy progressive shouting about how much fun it is to murder babies. It's cruel that the average person is currently burdened with constant anxiety over complex geopolitical events and philosophical questions far beyond them, when they should be almost entirely focused on the concerns of their daily lives and families.
I think it makes more sense to say culture is downstream from power. Culture includes the application of and (non-)acquiescence to law. Enshrining laws is important but only temporary if you don't seize and hold power. For the forces in power, the law is what they say it is. (hmm, I suppose if that means law=power then never mind)
This has nothing to do with what you said, just something I thought about the other day.
An exception for muh rape will just enable even more fraudulent accusations. Women already make shit up all the time, just for attention or money. Imagine throwing a kid in there as another motivation. Everyone will be an accused rapist.
Let's say that you're absolutely correct about everything. Even from your own POV, making that argument is a political loser, because it enables the kind of strawmen that the pro-choice fanatics use to oppose any restrictions on abortion.
If I accepted that there is a 'baby' from the moment of conception, I may agree to ban abortions for convenience, but obviously, a rape victim did not ask to get pregnant. It's an act of wanton cruelty to force such a thing on that victim, based on what is ultimately a philosophical matter that cannot be proven one way or the other.
The effectiveness of an argument is measured by the extent to which it moves people towards your side. Obviously, if you make an argument that repels people, no matter how logically valid it is or you think it is, that "negates its effectiveness".
There are no prizes for being morally correct, though I wouldn't argue that people who want to ban abortion in cases of rape are moral.
It has nothing to do with liberalism though.
It would be equally applicable to a Roman Senator who in 149 BC would say "hey, maybe we shouldn't destroy Carthage because they haven't done anything wrong".
Making arguments is trying to get the audience closer to your POV, nothing more.
You willing to bet your immortal soul, and the lives of innocents on that?
Do you think it is impossible for a valid argument to not be effective in your aim, which is persuading people?
Of course there are. And there are many bad, invalid and fallacious arguments that are effective.
Arguments are only relevant to debate among a people with a shared cultural framework, and culture is downstream from law. Progressives have been winning for many decades now by simply imposing their will and the populace accepts it later. This is a war.
The only debate the average normie should see is between ourguy and a carefully selected crazy progressive shouting about how much fun it is to murder babies. It's cruel that the average person is currently burdened with constant anxiety over complex geopolitical events and philosophical questions far beyond them, when they should be almost entirely focused on the concerns of their daily lives and families.
I think it makes more sense to say culture is downstream from power. Culture includes the application of and (non-)acquiescence to law. Enshrining laws is important but only temporary if you don't seize and hold power. For the forces in power, the law is what they say it is. (hmm, I suppose if that means law=power then never mind)
This has nothing to do with what you said, just something I thought about the other day.
Power is more appropriate.
Law is the codification of formal power. Or something similar, there is probably a better formulation.
An exception for muh rape will just enable even more fraudulent accusations. Women already make shit up all the time, just for attention or money. Imagine throwing a kid in there as another motivation. Everyone will be an accused rapist.