Almost everyone agrees there should be more compromises in politics. So I’m curious, how would that play out?
While I love the policy debates and the nuances, most people go for the big issues. So, according to the party platforms/my gut, here’s what I’d put as the 3 for each party:
Democrats: Abortion rights, gun control, climate change.
Republicans: Immigration, culture war (say, critical race theory in schools or gender affirming care for minors) , trump gets to be president. (Sorry but it really seems like a cult of personality at this point.)
Anyway, here’s the exercise: say the other side was willing to give up on all three of their issues but you had to give up on one of your side’s. OR, you can have two of your side’s but have to give up on the third.
Just curious to see how this plays out. (You are of course free to name other priorities you think better represent the parties but obviously if you write “making Joe Pesci day a national holiday” as a priority and give it up, that doesn’t really count.)
Edit: The consensus seems to be a big no to compromise. Which, fair, I imagine those on the Right feel just as strongly about what they would call baby murdering and replacing American workers etc.
Just kind of sad to see it in action.
But thanks/congrats to those who did try and work through a compromise!
I’m sure they do. But the thing is science at stats don’t back their stance.
Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, that’s a pretty iffy claim when we’re getting into what counts as life.
If I push a pregnant woman down some stairs and cause her to lose a baby, we all still view it as a despicable act, much worse than if she’d not been pregnant.
I personally am all for abortion rights but I’m not arrogant enough to decide everyone else is absolutely wrong and I am the arbiter of what is and isn’t life.
So because you’re not the ultimate moral arbiter, why not leave it up to the people who may or may not get an abortion? Almost like it’s pro CHOICE.
Your example of pushing is still assault and non-consensual, pretty easy to call a difference there. The only argument I’ve heard hold any water is the cutoff time for abortion, but that’s not what pro life people are ever talking about.
So are you saying that me pushing a pregnant woman down the stairs is the same as doing so to a non pregnant woman?
Again, I’m pro-choice. But, the pro-life response is simply that the unborn child doesn’t get a say in the matter. We don’t allow people to murder their born children even though it’s their own child. The pro-life movement just argues that the definition of child should include those who have yet to be born.
I mean, try asking any pregnant mom about whether the thing kicking around inside them is alive or not…
Well at the point of kicking, I don’t think many people are saying abortion is still an option. Pushing a pregnant person feels worse, in the same way hurting any more vulnerable party does. Can’t really argue with that. Causing a miscarriage should be a more serious offense yes, but I feel like it is a difference between suicide and manslaughter. Both are crime, and both have the same end point, but one was action taken against another.
The unborn child doesn’t get a say because it doesn’t have a say yet. It doesn’t have an opinion. It doesn’t want to live. It can’t survive on its own, it’s just a parasite basically until it’s born.
Being pregnant is a life threatening emergency, until we had modern medical intervention, we had death from childbirth all the time. Like, all the friggin time. Making someone carry to term is not exactly a no-risk/no struggle situation for them, and forcing them to is just punishment for sinning for a lot of pro-life people. Same reason a portion of pro life people want to ban contraceptives.
The goal is to stop having unhappy, poor, abused, or unwanted children, and to have happy, well adjusted, wanted and loved children. The pro-life argument usually stops as soon as a kid is born. No adoption programs, no child health care reform, no handouts for struggling parents, nothing. So someone who wasn’t ready to have a kid might now be forced to either abandon them or barely make it through life with a kid, making everything harder for all of them.
It absolutely is and was under Roe v Wade. Babies start to kick and move as early as 16 weeks. While Roe did allow states to regulate the second trimester (14 - 28 weeks) many states had no restrictions on abortions during this period:
https://www.axios.com/2022/05/14/abortion-state-laws-bans-roe-supreme-court
So again, do you think any pregnant mom who has you put your hand on her belly to feel the kid kick, would they agree the kicker is just a clump of cells or a parasite? (Actually, having had many pregnant friends scratch that last one, I think all of them at one point jokingly referred to their internal parasite.)
But the point is that even the most staunch pro-choice of us should have the decency to admit that the thing inside may not quite be a person but is certainly more than a clump of cells. Then the divergence is who has the rights, the outcomes etc. I agree with you that it’s wrong to force a woman to carry a kid to term but, as I keep trying to say, those who disagree have a point.
I know it’s super uncool these days to try and understand those with whom we disagree and even less cool to empathize with them but I promise you, it’s a worthwhile endeavor.
You are absolutely right. It’s a tough battle because they believe they are literally voting to not kill babies. It would be like someone trying to convince me to kill a toddler. How could I possibly compromise?
I don’t agree, but I can understand.