let's use a less politically charged example to explore this question. If I were to hire somebody to kill my boss (not that I would, but stay with me), am I the murderer, or is the guy who I hired the murderer? the answer is we were both accomplices to the act.
in the case of the abortion, this would mean that both were culpable, which raises the stats in both directions, though disproportionately on one side.
not trying to be a dick here, but I'm a little too autistic not to poke that hole in the logic, lol.
let's use a less politically charged example to explore this question. If I were to hire somebody to kill my boss (not that I would, but stay with me), am I the murderer, or is the guy who I hired the murderer? the answer is we were both accomplices to the act.
Right. I'm not sure on the exact English terminology, but this is certainly directionally correct.
But normally, anti-abortion advocates say that they only want to go after the doctors. If they start branding the women as murderers, then this implies that they also want to prosecute the women for murder, and this would be a bad idea for them - or at least the politicians who have such an albatross around their neck.
not trying to be a dick here
Far from it. You are making a good point. I like it when people make good arguments (not very common), even ones that poke holes in my logic.
But normally, anti-abortion advocates say that they only want to go after the doctors.
I can only speak for myself on this, but here goes.
on the one hand, the moral choice would be to go after the doctors and the women, but as you said, there are pragmatic reasons not to. If the goal is to stop as many abortions as possible while shifting what little public support there is in favor of stopping abortions as little as possible, then it makes sense to target doctors(god i hope that's not too confusing, lol). it's a trade off. =/
I like it when people make good arguments (not very common), even ones that poke holes in my logic.
yeah, but text-based conversations are prone to misunderstandings, and I tend to overthink things, so here we are, lmao.
If the goal is to stop as many abortions as possible while shifting what little public support there is in favor of stopping abortions as little as possible, then it makes sense to target doctors(god i hope that's not too confusing, lol). it's a trade off.
Nope, makes perfect sense. Of course, it opens people up to the accusation of hypocrisy, same as leftists when they're OK with a murderer being prosecuted for double murder when a woman is pregnant, thus recognizing the potential life as a child in that context but not others.
yeah, but text-based conversations are prone to misunderstandings, and I tend to overthink things, so here we are, lmao.
Not a bad thing. It's not exactly as if there is a surfeit of pleasant people here.
It's not an either
let's use a less politically charged example to explore this question. If I were to hire somebody to kill my boss (not that I would, but stay with me), am I the murderer, or is the guy who I hired the murderer? the answer is we were both accomplices to the act.
in the case of the abortion, this would mean that both were culpable, which raises the stats in both directions, though disproportionately on one side.
not trying to be a dick here, but I'm a little too autistic not to poke that hole in the logic, lol.
Right. I'm not sure on the exact English terminology, but this is certainly directionally correct.
But normally, anti-abortion advocates say that they only want to go after the doctors. If they start branding the women as murderers, then this implies that they also want to prosecute the women for murder, and this would be a bad idea for them - or at least the politicians who have such an albatross around their neck.
Far from it. You are making a good point. I like it when people make good arguments (not very common), even ones that poke holes in my logic.
I can only speak for myself on this, but here goes.
on the one hand, the moral choice would be to go after the doctors and the women, but as you said, there are pragmatic reasons not to. If the goal is to stop as many abortions as possible while shifting what little public support there is in favor of stopping abortions as little as possible, then it makes sense to target doctors(god i hope that's not too confusing, lol). it's a trade off. =/
yeah, but text-based conversations are prone to misunderstandings, and I tend to overthink things, so here we are, lmao.
Nope, makes perfect sense. Of course, it opens people up to the accusation of hypocrisy, same as leftists when they're OK with a murderer being prosecuted for double murder when a woman is pregnant, thus recognizing the potential life as a child in that context but not others.
Not a bad thing. It's not exactly as if there is a surfeit of pleasant people here.
you can the wins you can get, not the wins you can't, lol.
š¶welcome to the internetš¶