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.
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.