And the entire abortion debate over the last decades have shown that inches become miles overnight and any allowance becomes abuse. Which is a problem when that abuse is "legally murdering children."
Again, you treat it entirely as a game of back and forth about optics and winning, when people's strong points of view on it are completely moral in basis and thereby compromise is tantamount to giving blessing.
And the entire abortion debate over the last decades have shown that inches become miles overnight and any allowance becomes abuse.
How so? In the US, Roe vs. Wade gave sweeping rights that were gradually rolled back over decades.
Again, you treat it entirely as a game of back and forth about optics and winning, when people's strong points of view on it are completely moral in basis and thereby compromise is tantamount to giving blessing.
In the way that "in rare, understandable cases like incest and rape" became turned fractionally rare occurences into somehow a common thing that all women go through. Or that "early enough that its not alive" evolved into certain states pushing the "mother's life in danger" to just deciding that "anytime" qualifies.
Every single "common sense" metric was just redefined until it basically did nothing, as the Left and women will always do.
So you'd rather save zero rather than 50%?
We'd improve the life of the common Israeli by removing every Arab in existence, but I feel like you'd consider that not something we can only just genocide a few countries on. Or pick and choose any continent on this regard.
Again, you only look at issues through optics and winning and don't seem to understand not everyone thinks like you and has moral standings. Even if it might be the "best result."
And the entire abortion debate over the last decades have shown that inches become miles overnight and any allowance becomes abuse. Which is a problem when that abuse is "legally murdering children."
Again, you treat it entirely as a game of back and forth about optics and winning, when people's strong points of view on it are completely moral in basis and thereby compromise is tantamount to giving blessing.
How so? In the US, Roe vs. Wade gave sweeping rights that were gradually rolled back over decades.
So you'd rather save zero rather than 50%?
In the way that "in rare, understandable cases like incest and rape" became turned fractionally rare occurences into somehow a common thing that all women go through. Or that "early enough that its not alive" evolved into certain states pushing the "mother's life in danger" to just deciding that "anytime" qualifies.
Every single "common sense" metric was just redefined until it basically did nothing, as the Left and women will always do.
We'd improve the life of the common Israeli by removing every Arab in existence, but I feel like you'd consider that not something we can only just genocide a few countries on. Or pick and choose any continent on this regard.
Again, you only look at issues through optics and winning and don't seem to understand not everyone thinks like you and has moral standings. Even if it might be the "best result."