I agree with you, but I've given up on slaying this monster peacefully. Best case scenario is that the clown show collapses on itself and lock the left out of power when we rebuild.
Our country is in a constant state of decline sure but the harsh truth is that the system is still likely many decades away from a full collapse.
We heard conservative radiohosts over the last two decades constantly hype up a coming collapse and how we can remake society in our image and did it happen at all? No. I am in my 30s and I don't think it will happen in my lifetime.
We will just suffer a slow degeneration of our culture, financial wellbeing and our civil rights. Essentially death by a thousand cuts.
We must try to win electorally somehow. A non-political solution sounds good but It is just not feasible.
We either win elections and start to turn things around or we continue to lose more and more and suffer a slow decline. That is the sad reality.
The hostile takeover of the Republican party by competent conservatives is necessary.
This means no RINOS like Romney or Murkowski and also means no grifters like Kari Lake.
MAGA was supposed to be actually making the country great again. This means actually winning elections and making policy not crying about a stolen election and profiting off events and a book deal like Lake is currently doing.
We need serious competent conservatives not RINOs or grifters pretending to be MAGA like Lake.
I like what others are saying on sticking primarily to immigration, crime, and education (as in the pedo shit barging into it). Americans are mostly abortion moderates. Banning all abortion has always been a fringe position. It seems like the huge train disaster should be an issue for Ohio as well. The trouble is, the GOP is against stopping the flow of immigration . I just don't think it's particularly useful vehicle for politics. Something else must be built to replace it, and that's extremely hard.
You're still failing to grappler with the reality that these people very much represent the Republican party. The Republican party does not represent your interests.
Nothing will ever be done about it until THE FUCKING TAXPAYERS cut the government funding at gunpoint. As an overall spending ultimatum, not just an abortion motion.
It all ends once the people decide they're not paying rogue governments anymore. Abortionists will actually start to take care of their bodies properly, once they start getting billed the REAL cost of abortion.
That shit is all about getting as much money as possible. Peep out how much hospitals spend on paper pushers and bean counters YoY if you don't believe me.
That is one issue that really gets the left out to vote. I don’t know what inspires the far left to get out and vote more..pro abortion votes or to vote against Trump
It is sadly not just the far left coming out in droves to save abortion. It is clear that many Republican women and even some Republican men are voting to protect abortion. The percentages supporting abortion in referendums are too high for this to be not the case.
This is why abortion referendums have failed in solid red states Montana, Kansas and Kentucky. Republican candidates win these three states by double digits but we lost abortion referendums in these same states hard.
A majority of the general electorate sadly hates Trump sure but I think abortion restrictions are much more hated than Trump with the general electorate.
Abortion is the right's equivalent of "defund the police" in terms of how unpopular it is with the general electorate.
We must ban and restrict abortion only in states where the people have no referendum power to stop it. Don't do it in swing states where we will get destroyed in elections.
Overturning Roe was a pyrrhic victory for us if we keep pushing abortion restrictions and end up losing so hard that the left packs the Supreme Court and ends up codifying Roe again. What a fucking mess.
It absolutely sucks realizing that we live in a sick society where the majority truly believes being able to murder the unborn is an unalienable right.
Pro-life is the only correct moral position but we are sadly in the minority of the country on this one issue.
If we keep pushing abortion restrictions despite what the public thinks, it is clear that Dems will get a tri-fecta in 2024 and we will lose absolutely everything that matters to us.
Abortion is a huge killer for our candidates in swing states and hell it is even a very bad issue for our candidates in solid red states.
We cannot run candidates who are abortion hardliners. They will lose in every swing state and maybe even in red states.
Till now, I never realized that the country was this level of pro-abortion.
We unfortunately must change course nationally on the abortion issue.
I am staunchly pro-life and it sickens me to my stomach when I realize we clearly lost the war on abortion for now.
We cannot even win one fucking referendum on abortion in a goddamn red state. It is clear there are plenty of GOP voters who vote red and also vote to protect abortion.
The GOP needs to realize this is a losing issue. Our Senate candidates must not run on any national abortion bans. Our Presidential candidate should not run on any national abortion bans.
Don't fucking have a referendum on abortion in any red state. Pro-life will inevitably lose. We can only ban abortion or restrict it heavily in a red state if we can do it through the state legislature without going through any referendums like Texas and Florida did with their six week bans.
Referendums on abortions are clearly a loser for us.
Women value their own convenience and fitting in more than anything else. Women are like children that never really grow up. It's why successful societies have always treated women the way they did and why things like feminism and the 19th amendment never should've been allowed.
Perhaps a cope but, at least in Ohio's case, we can still win in November. This was merely to raise the bar for the vote percentage they needed to pass their abortion shit. If Issue 1 fails with 55% or less no votes, we absolutely have a fighting chance still. A lot of well meaning people were tricked into voting no on Issue 1, but that will be a lot harder when abortion is directly the issue at hand. At the very least it will be a closer vote; whether it will be enough we will see.
Technically speaking, this referendum was about the procedure for changing the Ohio Constitution. The abortion vote comes in November. This vote was to raise the threshold for a constitutional amendment from a simple majority to 60%.
The conservative vote was split because many conservatives just wanted to keep the status quo.
I thought overturning Roe was a massive victory when it happened.
Now I am starting to see it might be a pyrrhic victory if Republicans stupidly double down on pushing national abortion bans instead of focusing on the key issues of immigration, crime, gun rights and education.
I am uncertain why anyone wants to stop abortions. The black populations numbers will rise significantly without abortions. The white women getting abortions are not the women we want procreating anyway. Unwanted babies don't just ruin the woman's life but they ruin the man's life too. Arguably, they ruin the man's life more.
If anything, what we should be pushing for is giving men the right to abort a child that the woman doesn't want to abort and give the man the ability to choose not to abort a child the woman wants to abort. We should be giving men abortion rights and we could argue that by giving men abortion rights, it's the only way to ensure abortion always stays legal. Essentially negotiate with the legality on abortion hinging on giving men abortion rights.
Many leftists already say things like "if men were the ones who got pregnant then abortion would 100% be legal". So let's make it so men are the ones who can choose to get an abortion or not and make it legal.
some people think that a person's body autonomy takes absolute priority
Some people claim they believe that because it sounds like a good argument. But the vast majority of those people don't ACTUALLY give a shit about bodily autonomy as we saw with the shot mandates. It won't stop them from continuing to use that argument, but they're massive hypocrites who are pretending to take a principled stand, when they actually just want the convenience of access to abortions and never cared about men's rights or bodily autonomy to begin with.
Right but since both these things are entirely up for debate, meaning anyone can believe whatever they want regarding these things, why don't we instead do what's in our best interests as a civilization?
It's only contradictory if you want it to be contradictory. It doesn't need to hold any logical congruency to any set of morals. It just needs to do what is in people's best interests.
And your compromise is better than nothing but why would I start there in a negotiation when I can start all the way over where I was before? Think of the men who want children that the woman murders with abortion, omg... terrible. We need to look out for these men. If a woman aborts a child against the man's wishes, that's murder. But I'd be fine if all we accomplished is where you're willing to compromise.
Men's rights fails for one simple reason. Lack of power. That is all.
I starting writing a long answer to explain this to you, because I think you are sincere, but I ended up deleting it because it was getting unwieldy. In short, what you are proposing is simply unrealistic considering how societies and human morality function, biologically and "spiritually". Unless you can create a successful cult to push your ideas, changes to moral frameworks occur over generations. I hope you already understand this and you are just venting a hypothetical.
This was about the structure of constitutional amendments not abortion.
Abortion related referendums are fine, but you do have to understand that conservatives aren't going to be able to ban all abortions until you win the culture on that issue.
It's more that the initiative is always poorly worded. I remember hearing from family in Kentucky. The ballot initiative for that was like three pages of just jargon and made it seem that yes meant no.
I feel it was probably the same way in Ohio. The political class obscured the issue with jargon to confuse the average voter.
Regardless of where you stand on abortion, making it outright illegal or heavily regulated is not really a realistic option. It will still happen, it will just be unregulated, dangerous, etc., etc.
I wish people put as much energy towards foster care, adoption, etc. as they do towards abortion. People tend to not care what happens to the kid as long as it has to be born, which is the issue.
I'd prefer if abortion didn't need to be an option, and if people were just more responsible, but we have to be realistic about it.
The much better route is to encourage contraceptives, make people aware of the financial burdens, provide better tax credits and maternity leave, and a whole slew of things that would be infinitely more legislatively popular and reasonable when enforced.
I'll probably get downvoted for this here, but its the truth.
I wish people put as much energy towards foster care, adoption, etc. as they do towards abortion.
You mean the Christians who are the largest adoption population in the US? Make a better argument that’s grounded in something other than black pill conjecture.
Regardless of where you stand on abortion, making it outright illegal or heavily regulated is not really a realistic option. It will still happen, it will just be unregulated, dangerous, etc., etc.
Actions have consequences, saying that people will still commit a crime is not a good reason to legalize it.
The much better route is to encourage contraceptives, make people aware of the financial burdens, provide better tax credits and maternity leave, and a whole slew of things that would be infinitely more legislatively popular and reasonable when enforced.
Leftists have been doing this in sex ed for decades with negative success rates, why continue a shitty failed policy developed by legitimate pedophiles? Maternity leave is now so expansive it is a liability economically to any company hiring female employees, which is why many corporations fund abortions….
Are you a far leftist trying to larp? Because these arguments are hilariously bad, like ending cash bail levels of stupid.
No, this was a gimmick from funky statistics, they made comparative studies post roe compared to pre roe and then claimed it was access to contraception. What’s actually changed is the amount of teen marriages, which was fairly common even up to the 90s, and 18 year old wife getting pregnant was listed as a teen pregnancy. Unwed teen pregnancies are actually higher today compared to decades ago.
You mean the Christians who are the largest adoption population in the US? Make a better argument that’s grounded in something other than black pill conjecture.
Christians adopting the most doesn't offset the impact of banning abortion. If you think this is a gotcha, then I'm sorry to inform you that your retardation is terminal.
We already don't have enough people adopting, even among Christians. You think the issue wouldn't be worse if you forced people to carry to term?
Actions have consequences, saying that people will still commit a crime is not a good reason to legalize it.
This isn't a justification. You could use this argument to justify almost anything.
Leftists have been doing this in sex ed for decades with negative success rates
Then why are birth rates lower in poorer countries where it's taught even where abortions aren't generally available?
You actually don't have any arguments with real merit lmao.
Imagine thinking someone is far left because they know that trying to make abortion illegal is actually braindead retarded, regardless of whether you like abortion happening or not.
We already don't have enough people adopting, even among Christians. You think the issue wouldn't be worse if you forced people to carry to term?
Right because the issue was worse when abortion was illegal up till the 70s? When did single mothers skyrocket again?
This isn't a justification. You could use this argument to justify almost anything.
You don’t have an argument for why abortion should be legal. Murder is murder.
Then why are birth rates lower in poorer countries where it's taught even where abortions aren't generally available?
Looks at teen birth rates in California, looks at 60 million plus abortions in the us since Roe, looks at single parent rates in US. Yeah… that “method” is totally working! Notice how you couldn’t make a case for it being successful in the US and instantly had to pretend poorer countries teach safe sex and not rape condoms.
Regardless of where you stand on murder, making it outright illegal or heavily regulated is not really a realistic option. It will still happen, it will just be unregulated, dangerous, etc., etc.
I don't want to be too blunt but this argument never made sense to me.
One of the reasons I think most people are skittish on blanket abortion bans is that the moral status of a ball of cells isn't settled. People treating chemical pregnancies like losing a born child is weird. The Bible says you are a person when you are conceived, but it's difficult to say what that refers to. When the fetus has organs? Yes definitely.
Personally I would counsel against abortions for any stage, but I find it hard to make a judgment on other people because of those questions.
Attempting to change an argument with a word that's morally loaded and doesn't apply to the argument in reality doesn't really work in your favor.
I don't care about the moral argument.
Making it illegal is a net negative for society, not even because of bodily autonomy.
It just means people go back to back ally abortion clinics, you have unregulated "doctors" working in unsanitary conditions, people are forced to have kids which destroys their finances and likely careers, etc., etc.
Attempting to change an argument with a word that's morally loaded and doesn't apply to the argument in reality doesn't really work in your favor.
I'm speaking about the perspective of people who actually believe it is murder. Trying to get them to go along with abortion "because people will do it anyway" is a nonstarter.
Obviously for someone like you who doesn't think you're killing anyone, it's totally fine to be safe, legal, and rare (as Hillary famously proposed).
But that's why I think we should put more effort on addressing the reasons people get abortions. Not being able to afford a kid, it interfering with their career, etc., etc. If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong here, there were surveys at abortion clinics showing that a significant portion got them for reasons other than simply not wanting a kid.
Do you think its valid to argue that those cases shouldn't be addressed first, considering they're infinitely more electorally popular and reasonable?
My arguments aren't based on the morality of it; I'd rather it didn't happen. If people want to argue morality, there's a lot going against a ban because of the downstream outcomes as well.
I don't know if I would agree with these recent ban attempts. As mentioned earlier, I think addressing fetuses with organs is much more reasonable than blanket bans.
As far as addressing concerns with child-rearing, Republicans might be able to do more. But it's a complex issue. You don't want to incentivize welfare octomoms. You also have to account for companies working around your legislation, like for instance corporations avoiding female hires or hires likely to have kids to avoid the burden of maternal/paternal leave.
As mentioned earlier, I think addressing fetuses with organs is much more reasonable than blanket bans.
This is fair, and I'd agree, but most people aren't considering the philosophical aspect of "when is it a human".
Important to note that the 'organ' cases are also likely going to be the ones where something is interfering with their ability to reasonably have a child, rather than not wanting one at all.
So only addressing that still leaves the majority of abortions that happen prior to ~12 weeks. People would still likely be upset about abortion, so more would still have to be done in some way.
Republicans might be able to do more
To be fair, its not just Republicans. Democrats don't seem to want to address the things that would be a net benefit to all that would also reduce the need for abortions, thus placating Republicans as well.
If abortions actually were rare like many leftists want you to believe, I doubt most people would make as much of a stink about abortion.
You don't want to incentivize welfare octomoms
Set a lifetime cap; 3-4 kids seems reasonable to me. After a certain point, you're either abusing the system or stupid enough that we don't want more of your genes spreading.
You also have to account for companies working around your legislation
Companies already do this, don't they? The crossover between those that do and those that would be likely do go further if they were required to provide better maternity leave is probably almost 1:1.
And after a certain point, trends start to become noticeable and they'd likely get nailed for discrimination.
Also, remote work becoming more prevalent, especially for HR/payroll, has improved that situation.
This is fair, and I'd agree, but most people aren't considering the philosophical aspect of "when is it a human".
I don't know, are they? That's why I'm wondering what these ban referendums look like. Historically, pro-lifers have been effective in passing state legislation (not referendums).
If Republicans for whatever reason can't accomplish anything, then I would prefer they just not talk about it for bit. But I'm guessing this isn't the case. More likely Republicans are overreaching with the scope of their proposed bans.
To be fair, its not just Republicans. Democrats don't seem to want to address the things that would be a net benefit to all that would also reduce the need for abortions, thus placating Republicans as well.
If abortions actually were rare like many leftists want you to believe, I doubt most people would make as much of a stink about abortion.
That's fair, unfortunately Democrats are evil.
Set a lifetime cap; 3-4 kids seems reasonable to me. After a certain point, you're either abusing the system or stupid enough that we don't want more of your genes spreading.
Hmm, sounds reasonable to me.
Companies already do this, don't they? The crossover between those that do and those that would be likely do go further if they were required to provide better maternity leave is probably almost 1:1.
And after a certain point, trends start to become noticeable and they'd likely get nailed for discrimination.
Also, remote work becoming more prevalent, especially for HR/payroll, has improved that situation.
Well, you just said it: companies need to start getting nailed for discrimination and essentially incentivizing people to get abortions. Our replacement rate is in a bad place, especially for the core demographic of the country.
Repeal the 19th.
Revert to taxpayers only.
If you go further to land-owning taxpayers only, bar corporations and foreigners from hoarding real estate and renting houses with land space out.
Much easier said than done.
I support repealing the 19th but that genie is out of the bottle and it cannot be put back.
We must find a way to still win with the current electorate.
Complaining and imagining how things would be better if the electorate were somehow magically changed is just a waste of time.
I agree with you, but I've given up on slaying this monster peacefully. Best case scenario is that the clown show collapses on itself and lock the left out of power when we rebuild.
That type of thinking is just copium.
Our country is in a constant state of decline sure but the harsh truth is that the system is still likely many decades away from a full collapse.
We heard conservative radiohosts over the last two decades constantly hype up a coming collapse and how we can remake society in our image and did it happen at all? No. I am in my 30s and I don't think it will happen in my lifetime.
We will just suffer a slow degeneration of our culture, financial wellbeing and our civil rights. Essentially death by a thousand cuts.
We must try to win electorally somehow. A non-political solution sounds good but It is just not feasible.
We either win elections and start to turn things around or we continue to lose more and more and suffer a slow decline. That is the sad reality.
How do you account for Republicans having no interest in fixing things?
The hostile takeover of the Republican party by competent conservatives is necessary.
This means no RINOS like Romney or Murkowski and also means no grifters like Kari Lake.
MAGA was supposed to be actually making the country great again. This means actually winning elections and making policy not crying about a stolen election and profiting off events and a book deal like Lake is currently doing.
We need serious competent conservatives not RINOs or grifters pretending to be MAGA like Lake.
I like what others are saying on sticking primarily to immigration, crime, and education (as in the pedo shit barging into it). Americans are mostly abortion moderates. Banning all abortion has always been a fringe position. It seems like the huge train disaster should be an issue for Ohio as well. The trouble is, the GOP is against stopping the flow of immigration . I just don't think it's particularly useful vehicle for politics. Something else must be built to replace it, and that's extremely hard.
Yeah, a person who left a stable, comfortable 7-figure gig (or was it 8?) to try to make changes is clearly a grifter.
She is grifting money off conservative retirees while screaming stolen election and taking their money for legal challenges that won't go anywhere.
She hasn't achieved anything of value but she talks like she is the most effective conservative leader ever in history.
She was a Dem as recent as 2018. She even protested Trump's inauguration in 2017.
She is everything that I hate in a politician.
I despise everything about Fake Lake.
I hope she rots away to irrelevance when she undoubtedly loses the winnable AZ Senate race next year.
You're still failing to grappler with the reality that these people very much represent the Republican party. The Republican party does not represent your interests.
Not with that attitude.
Nothing will ever be done about it until THE FUCKING TAXPAYERS cut the government funding at gunpoint. As an overall spending ultimatum, not just an abortion motion.
It all ends once the people decide they're not paying rogue governments anymore. Abortionists will actually start to take care of their bodies properly, once they start getting billed the REAL cost of abortion.
You do realize the procedure for having a child with insurance costs more than an uninsured abortion until after the first trimester, right?
That shit is all about getting as much money as possible. Peep out how much hospitals spend on paper pushers and bean counters YoY if you don't believe me.
Pretty sure everyone in America is aware of it being about getting as much money as possible lmao.
Women voting precludes a political solution
That is one issue that really gets the left out to vote. I don’t know what inspires the far left to get out and vote more..pro abortion votes or to vote against Trump
It is sadly not just the far left coming out in droves to save abortion. It is clear that many Republican women and even some Republican men are voting to protect abortion. The percentages supporting abortion in referendums are too high for this to be not the case.
This is why abortion referendums have failed in solid red states Montana, Kansas and Kentucky. Republican candidates win these three states by double digits but we lost abortion referendums in these same states hard.
A majority of the general electorate sadly hates Trump sure but I think abortion restrictions are much more hated than Trump with the general electorate.
Abortion is the right's equivalent of "defund the police" in terms of how unpopular it is with the general electorate.
We must ban and restrict abortion only in states where the people have no referendum power to stop it. Don't do it in swing states where we will get destroyed in elections.
Overturning Roe was a pyrrhic victory for us if we keep pushing abortion restrictions and end up losing so hard that the left packs the Supreme Court and ends up codifying Roe again. What a fucking mess.
Yea I agree. I wouldn’t have agreed a while back but I’ve seen over and over that it’s a losing issue for us.
It absolutely sucks realizing that we live in a sick society where the majority truly believes being able to murder the unborn is an unalienable right.
Pro-life is the only correct moral position but we are sadly in the minority of the country on this one issue.
If we keep pushing abortion restrictions despite what the public thinks, it is clear that Dems will get a tri-fecta in 2024 and we will lose absolutely everything that matters to us.
Abortion is a huge killer for our candidates in swing states and hell it is even a very bad issue for our candidates in solid red states.
We cannot run candidates who are abortion hardliners. They will lose in every swing state and maybe even in red states.
Till now, I never realized that the country was this level of pro-abortion.
We unfortunately must change course nationally on the abortion issue.
I am staunchly pro-life and it sickens me to my stomach when I realize we clearly lost the war on abortion for now.
We cannot even win one fucking referendum on abortion in a goddamn red state. It is clear there are plenty of GOP voters who vote red and also vote to protect abortion.
The GOP needs to realize this is a losing issue. Our Senate candidates must not run on any national abortion bans. Our Presidential candidate should not run on any national abortion bans.
Don't fucking have a referendum on abortion in any red state. Pro-life will inevitably lose. We can only ban abortion or restrict it heavily in a red state if we can do it through the state legislature without going through any referendums like Texas and Florida did with their six week bans.
Referendums on abortions are clearly a loser for us.
Women value their own convenience and fitting in more than anything else. Women are like children that never really grow up. It's why successful societies have always treated women the way they did and why things like feminism and the 19th amendment never should've been allowed.
Perhaps a cope but, at least in Ohio's case, we can still win in November. This was merely to raise the bar for the vote percentage they needed to pass their abortion shit. If Issue 1 fails with 55% or less no votes, we absolutely have a fighting chance still. A lot of well meaning people were tricked into voting no on Issue 1, but that will be a lot harder when abortion is directly the issue at hand. At the very least it will be a closer vote; whether it will be enough we will see.
This is absolutely a cope.
Abortion referendums lost in KY, MT and KS which are redder than OH.
Pro-choice monsters will easily get 50+ percent which is all they need to pass it.
The abortion referendum is sadly very likely going to pass.
I wish it wasn't but this is reality.
The majority of the electorate is immoral and hedonistic. They value killing the unborn as an unalienable right.
Technically speaking, this referendum was about the procedure for changing the Ohio Constitution. The abortion vote comes in November. This vote was to raise the threshold for a constitutional amendment from a simple majority to 60%.
The conservative vote was split because many conservatives just wanted to keep the status quo.
Never should have overturned roe v wade. Republicans should be running on immigration and law and order.
Yes, but the problem is that Republicans want the immigration to continue.
I thought overturning Roe was a massive victory when it happened.
Now I am starting to see it might be a pyrrhic victory if Republicans stupidly double down on pushing national abortion bans instead of focusing on the key issues of immigration, crime, gun rights and education.
I am uncertain why anyone wants to stop abortions. The black populations numbers will rise significantly without abortions. The white women getting abortions are not the women we want procreating anyway. Unwanted babies don't just ruin the woman's life but they ruin the man's life too. Arguably, they ruin the man's life more.
If anything, what we should be pushing for is giving men the right to abort a child that the woman doesn't want to abort and give the man the ability to choose not to abort a child the woman wants to abort. We should be giving men abortion rights and we could argue that by giving men abortion rights, it's the only way to ensure abortion always stays legal. Essentially negotiate with the legality on abortion hinging on giving men abortion rights.
Many leftists already say things like "if men were the ones who got pregnant then abortion would 100% be legal". So let's make it so men are the ones who can choose to get an abortion or not and make it legal.
Some people claim they believe that because it sounds like a good argument. But the vast majority of those people don't ACTUALLY give a shit about bodily autonomy as we saw with the shot mandates. It won't stop them from continuing to use that argument, but they're massive hypocrites who are pretending to take a principled stand, when they actually just want the convenience of access to abortions and never cared about men's rights or bodily autonomy to begin with.
Right but since both these things are entirely up for debate, meaning anyone can believe whatever they want regarding these things, why don't we instead do what's in our best interests as a civilization?
It's only contradictory if you want it to be contradictory. It doesn't need to hold any logical congruency to any set of morals. It just needs to do what is in people's best interests.
And your compromise is better than nothing but why would I start there in a negotiation when I can start all the way over where I was before? Think of the men who want children that the woman murders with abortion, omg... terrible. We need to look out for these men. If a woman aborts a child against the man's wishes, that's murder. But I'd be fine if all we accomplished is where you're willing to compromise.
Men's rights fails for one simple reason. Lack of power. That is all.
I starting writing a long answer to explain this to you, because I think you are sincere, but I ended up deleting it because it was getting unwieldy. In short, what you are proposing is simply unrealistic considering how societies and human morality function, biologically and "spiritually". Unless you can create a successful cult to push your ideas, changes to moral frameworks occur over generations. I hope you already understand this and you are just venting a hypothetical.
This was about the structure of constitutional amendments not abortion.
Abortion related referendums are fine, but you do have to understand that conservatives aren't going to be able to ban all abortions until you win the culture on that issue.
It's more that the initiative is always poorly worded. I remember hearing from family in Kentucky. The ballot initiative for that was like three pages of just jargon and made it seem that yes meant no.
I feel it was probably the same way in Ohio. The political class obscured the issue with jargon to confuse the average voter.
And too many men think child murder is okay.
I hope society burns down and we start over.
Regardless of where you stand on abortion, making it outright illegal or heavily regulated is not really a realistic option. It will still happen, it will just be unregulated, dangerous, etc., etc.
I wish people put as much energy towards foster care, adoption, etc. as they do towards abortion. People tend to not care what happens to the kid as long as it has to be born, which is the issue.
I'd prefer if abortion didn't need to be an option, and if people were just more responsible, but we have to be realistic about it.
The much better route is to encourage contraceptives, make people aware of the financial burdens, provide better tax credits and maternity leave, and a whole slew of things that would be infinitely more legislatively popular and reasonable when enforced.
I'll probably get downvoted for this here, but its the truth.
You mean the Christians who are the largest adoption population in the US? Make a better argument that’s grounded in something other than black pill conjecture.
Actions have consequences, saying that people will still commit a crime is not a good reason to legalize it.
Leftists have been doing this in sex ed for decades with negative success rates, why continue a shitty failed policy developed by legitimate pedophiles? Maternity leave is now so expansive it is a liability economically to any company hiring female employees, which is why many corporations fund abortions….
Are you a far leftist trying to larp? Because these arguments are hilariously bad, like ending cash bail levels of stupid.
No, this was a gimmick from funky statistics, they made comparative studies post roe compared to pre roe and then claimed it was access to contraception. What’s actually changed is the amount of teen marriages, which was fairly common even up to the 90s, and 18 year old wife getting pregnant was listed as a teen pregnancy. Unwed teen pregnancies are actually higher today compared to decades ago.
Christians adopting the most doesn't offset the impact of banning abortion. If you think this is a gotcha, then I'm sorry to inform you that your retardation is terminal.
We already don't have enough people adopting, even among Christians. You think the issue wouldn't be worse if you forced people to carry to term?
This isn't a justification. You could use this argument to justify almost anything.
Then why are birth rates lower in poorer countries where it's taught even where abortions aren't generally available?
You actually don't have any arguments with real merit lmao.
Imagine thinking someone is far left because they know that trying to make abortion illegal is actually braindead retarded, regardless of whether you like abortion happening or not.
Right because the issue was worse when abortion was illegal up till the 70s? When did single mothers skyrocket again?
You don’t have an argument for why abortion should be legal. Murder is murder.
Looks at teen birth rates in California, looks at 60 million plus abortions in the us since Roe, looks at single parent rates in US. Yeah… that “method” is totally working! Notice how you couldn’t make a case for it being successful in the US and instantly had to pretend poorer countries teach safe sex and not rape condoms.
Abortion is a distraction of much larger issues in the country
This has been the case for 20 or 30 years now.
Its been a tool used to draw votes, and that's it.
I don't want to be too blunt but this argument never made sense to me.
One of the reasons I think most people are skittish on blanket abortion bans is that the moral status of a ball of cells isn't settled. People treating chemical pregnancies like losing a born child is weird. The Bible says you are a person when you are conceived, but it's difficult to say what that refers to. When the fetus has organs? Yes definitely.
Personally I would counsel against abortions for any stage, but I find it hard to make a judgment on other people because of those questions.
Attempting to change an argument with a word that's morally loaded and doesn't apply to the argument in reality doesn't really work in your favor.
I don't care about the moral argument.
Making it illegal is a net negative for society, not even because of bodily autonomy.
It just means people go back to back ally abortion clinics, you have unregulated "doctors" working in unsanitary conditions, people are forced to have kids which destroys their finances and likely careers, etc., etc.
I'm speaking about the perspective of people who actually believe it is murder. Trying to get them to go along with abortion "because people will do it anyway" is a nonstarter.
Obviously for someone like you who doesn't think you're killing anyone, it's totally fine to be safe, legal, and rare (as Hillary famously proposed).
I'm not foolish enough to think its rare.
But that's why I think we should put more effort on addressing the reasons people get abortions. Not being able to afford a kid, it interfering with their career, etc., etc. If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong here, there were surveys at abortion clinics showing that a significant portion got them for reasons other than simply not wanting a kid.
Do you think its valid to argue that those cases shouldn't be addressed first, considering they're infinitely more electorally popular and reasonable?
My arguments aren't based on the morality of it; I'd rather it didn't happen. If people want to argue morality, there's a lot going against a ban because of the downstream outcomes as well.
I don't know if I would agree with these recent ban attempts. As mentioned earlier, I think addressing fetuses with organs is much more reasonable than blanket bans.
As far as addressing concerns with child-rearing, Republicans might be able to do more. But it's a complex issue. You don't want to incentivize welfare octomoms. You also have to account for companies working around your legislation, like for instance corporations avoiding female hires or hires likely to have kids to avoid the burden of maternal/paternal leave.
This is fair, and I'd agree, but most people aren't considering the philosophical aspect of "when is it a human".
Important to note that the 'organ' cases are also likely going to be the ones where something is interfering with their ability to reasonably have a child, rather than not wanting one at all.
So only addressing that still leaves the majority of abortions that happen prior to ~12 weeks. People would still likely be upset about abortion, so more would still have to be done in some way.
To be fair, its not just Republicans. Democrats don't seem to want to address the things that would be a net benefit to all that would also reduce the need for abortions, thus placating Republicans as well.
If abortions actually were rare like many leftists want you to believe, I doubt most people would make as much of a stink about abortion.
Set a lifetime cap; 3-4 kids seems reasonable to me. After a certain point, you're either abusing the system or stupid enough that we don't want more of your genes spreading.
Companies already do this, don't they? The crossover between those that do and those that would be likely do go further if they were required to provide better maternity leave is probably almost 1:1.
And after a certain point, trends start to become noticeable and they'd likely get nailed for discrimination.
Also, remote work becoming more prevalent, especially for HR/payroll, has improved that situation.
I don't know, are they? That's why I'm wondering what these ban referendums look like. Historically, pro-lifers have been effective in passing state legislation (not referendums).
If Republicans for whatever reason can't accomplish anything, then I would prefer they just not talk about it for bit. But I'm guessing this isn't the case. More likely Republicans are overreaching with the scope of their proposed bans.
That's fair, unfortunately Democrats are evil.
Hmm, sounds reasonable to me.
Well, you just said it: companies need to start getting nailed for discrimination and essentially incentivizing people to get abortions. Our replacement rate is in a bad place, especially for the core demographic of the country.
Most abortions are black so I’m fine with it