So about that abortion thing..

[MikeH]

Incidentally, the majority of Americans take the sensible position that abortion should be allowed "only in certain cases." And it is allowed only in certain cases. That's a great thing. It means we've adopted the moral law the majority of people believe in, which is probably a decent approximation of actual right and wrong.

Additionally, it's a much more intellectually consistent position than either of the extremes.

Which is why it's so bizarre that it's such a big political issue. You win elections by converting the floating bits of the centre not appealing to the extremes.

[DinoDoc]

Considering it was illegal in more than half the states pre-Wade, I don't think that's particularly true.

In the five years before 1973, 16 states, with 41 percent of the nation's population — including then-Governor Reagan's California — liberalized their abortion laws.

[Asher]

Is it just me or is Asher literally incapable of intelligently participating in any discussion?

Asher realizes there will be no intellectual discussion with people like you. That makes me more intelligent than you are - you still don't understand most of the words you use in this thread.

"wah wah wah, murderer murderer murderer! You are murdering children! And you are incapable of intelligently participating in this discussion!"

[MikeH]

I sometimes wonder if you've never seen any of the numerous threads on the topic we've had here. The repetitive nature of the threads makes me wonder why people like ken keep making them.

No matter how often I dispense my wisdom people continue to be wrong.

[Hauldren Collider]

What a zinger. You should do debate prep.

xpost

[MikeH]

Thanks.

[Asher]

What a zinger. You should do debate prep.

xpost

I don't need to prep, HC. I'm born ready to go.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Look, it's totally tangential--the central argument is "do we think fetuses are people". I say yes. That sort of overrides almost every other consideration.

That is 100% true. I'm not sure what addressing strawmen, as in the OP, will do, but the main question really is unrelated.

[Guynemer]

I have decided that every time a new abortion thread is posted on Poly, I will endeavor to post at least one example per page of posts of a result from a GIS of "annoying gif" or something similar along those lines.

[giblets]

Tiller aborted babies who had no defects and posed no threat to the life of the mother. He would rubber-stamp diagnoses for "emotional danger" to the mother and abort them under a psychological justification.

There is a reason he was one of only three doctors in the entire United States willing to perform such abortions. It made him fabulously wealthy, by the way.

It looks like Kansas state law already has a check against abuse by requiring the approval of two doctors who are financially unaffiliated with the doctor performing the abortion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What I've described isn't an "extremist" position in the US. It is the mainstream position of the pro-abortion movement. Pro-abortion groups fought tooth-and-nail against even the laws banning partial birth abortions.

This is unfortunately true. The reason I've stopped giving to the ACLU is that they consider the extremist pro-choice view as part of the rights they will defend to the death and use the money I was donating for that purpose. I would rather see more sensible abortion laws and couldn't support an organization which was so gung ho extremist on abortion (even though I agree with them on like 90% of everything else - I do think their strict line against any mention of religion in public is ridiculous, however - even when I was an atheist).

[giblets]

Which is why it's so bizarre that it's such a big political issue. You win elections by converting the floating bits of the centre not appealing to the extremes.

In the US motivating people to actually come to the polls and vote is half of the battle. That's why politicians try to appeal to people who think the lives of babies or women's rights are at stake. Turnout wins elections.

[Jaguar]

Which is why it's so bizarre that it's such a big political issue. You win elections by converting the floating bits of the centre not appealing to the extremes.

It actually mostly goes on under the surface these days. It's still a big issue to the 20% of people who think it should be illegal in all circumstances, and the 25% who think it should be legal in all circumstances. Politicians can and do give some quiet euphemisms to pander to those respective groups, but they understand that if they talk too much, they'll just rile up the group on the other side and annoy the people in the center.

It's the people who aren't running for office who are free to go bonkers.

[MikeH]

That is 100% true. I'm not sure what addressing strawmen, as in the OP, will do, but the main question really is unrelated.

I don't really agree with this. I don't think it matters if you believe they are people or not.

We have laws that allow us to kill people legally all over the place. Even if it's just that a doctor is allowed to turn off life support machines or allow police and/or military to kill legally.

Most people would say that killing in self defence is not murder.

[MikeH]

I know HC et al will all say "those things aren't the same!"

I didn't say they are, I am just pointing out that whether a foetus is a person or not is not the deciding factor in the debate.