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.
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.