There's, like, 3 people running who want abortion to be illegal in cases of rape.
Do you seriously not think any of the pro-life positions are even worth debating? And that preventing even marginal restrictions on abortion is worth killing the internet? (the partial-birth abortion ban was the biggest pro-life victory in years).
All I sense from you is anger and contempt, no intellectual engagement. That's not going to win over people who don't already agree with you.
I sympathized with Hillary Clinton's formulation that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare". The new abortion-absolutism says it should be "ubiquitous, easy, and subsidized". I don't agree with that. I still find late-term abortion nauseating, and early-term abortion regretful.
Am I an evil monster for thinking this way? Am I completely beyond the pale of polite opinion? Am I not worth debating?
You're overexaggerating the impacts of SOPA on the internet ("killing") and understating the kinds of restrictions people want to impose on abortion (it's more than 3 people--the Republican platform contained no exceptions for rape or incest).
There is no "abortion absolutism." Abortion rights have been scaled back dramatically since Roe. That's just plain fact, and it's dishonest to imply otherwise. The battleground is now over things like notice requirements and trans-vaginal ultra-sounds for abortions during any stage of pregnancy. And indeed, the battle ground is far closer now to "protecting any sort of abortion rights at all" than it is to "ubiqtuous, easy, and subsidized." What a totally dishonest characterization of the actual facts. The abortion rate fell 30% from 1990 to 2008, and has fallen in the past four years.
'The new abortion-absolutism says it should be "ubiquitous, easy, and subsidized"'
Must... resist... politics...
Okay, I can't resist. No one in elected office has said that they want to subsidize abortion. They probably should (at least for early term ones), but the fact is they don't.
Nor has anyone ever argued that abortions should be "ubiquitous." Seriously: can you provide a statement from anyone, ever, who says that every woman should be forced to get abortions?
Lastly: "easy." Okay, this is probably a position genuinely and widely held throughout the Democratic Party. Abortions should be easy: you shouldn't have to go through three doctor's appointments, have a rod shoved into your vagina, and be yelled at and have your picture taken and posted online when you go to a clinic for a legal procedure. That's an accurate statement of an actually-held position, but that position is hardly beyond the pale.
Is it wrong that I have no problems with non-vaginal ultrasound requirements?
In my book, abortion carries more moral importance than, say, clipping a toenail. Partial-birth abortions, while rare, were barbarous. I understand state populations that want to have waiting periods and such things.
Ideally, society should offer support and education such that fewer abortions occur.
The same people who say they hate abortions are also opposed to subsidizing contraception.
And it makes no sense. Unless you're ideologically opposed to any sort of government subsidy, contraception has got to have the best return on a per-dollar basis.
And when the interviewer pointed out there was a 60-80% drop in the abortion rate (compared to the nat'l average) among women in St. Louis who received free contraception for three years, Yoest refused to discuss it, calling it a "red herring."
These activists can say "life begins at conception" til they're blue in the face, but every major medical organization defines pregnancy as the implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterus. Why do we need more unwanted children in this country when it's so preventable?
Do you seriously not think any of the pro-life positions are even worth debating? And that preventing even marginal restrictions on abortion is worth killing the internet? (the partial-birth abortion ban was the biggest pro-life victory in years).
All I sense from you is anger and contempt, no intellectual engagement. That's not going to win over people who don't already agree with you.
I sympathized with Hillary Clinton's formulation that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare". The new abortion-absolutism says it should be "ubiquitous, easy, and subsidized". I don't agree with that. I still find late-term abortion nauseating, and early-term abortion regretful.
Am I an evil monster for thinking this way? Am I completely beyond the pale of polite opinion? Am I not worth debating?