1. #7241
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    The fucking hubris of this man and those involved in drafting this argument...
    Don't forget the cruelty, too.

  2. #7242
    The Lightbringer
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    3,288
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    Paxton's argument when he asked the Texas Supreme Court to intervene and block the TRO last week.
    It's really neat and not at all frustrating that people who are unable to understand or willfully misinterpret how medical procedures work get to be the final arbiter in regulating them.

    In Paxton's case I'm leaning towards the latter, just reaching for any excuse to support the conclusion he came up with. It really goes to show how absolutely meaningless the 'exemptions' they write into their abortion laws are when they can choose to ignore them with bullshit pretenses.

  3. #7243
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    You'd do yourself a bit of good if you just take the L on this instance. The law is clearly not working, and this Texas woman suffered needlessly and had to go to a judge to ask for an exemption.

    Arguing that it's somehow the medical profession's fault in this instance is cruel, tehdang. It's not theoretical anymore.
    If I was trying to become popular in these parts, I would instantly accept your advice. I'd also take it if I were a salesman trying to market my pro-life position to a pro-choice crowd.

    As it stands, I was tagged here (https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post54340895) and read the post. Two things struck me as interesting in context:
    First, is this a viable (no pun intended) example of politicians inserting themselves in the stead of doctors? The answer is both yes and no. Yes, because the Texas law does not consider the expected survival of the unborn baby. No, because the doctor had opportunity to give to say that she believed her patient had a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function (or life-threatening physical condition) in her medical judgment and for some reason refused to do so in the court case. There's something more to this case, because the doctor did not state for the record her medical judgment, and the Texas Supreme Court decision put that quite plainly. It could be liability or insurance law, or whatnot.
    Second, is there anything about this case that justifiably introduces comparisons to my statements and positions in this thread? The answer is no, not that I've seen thus far. I've said the post-viability unborn babies deserve consideration in the law, because they are at that point a non-negligible second-body whose rights must be protected. If laws preserving them are dismissed as unnecessary, that presupposes that no mother at any time today through to decades in the future will consider a distressing life circumstance as necessitating abortion, when the better option would be carrying to term and adoption and care by the state. The second-body in the "my body my choice" formulation is viable, but this unborn baby apparently has an incredibly high likelihood of dying prior to childbirth and in its first year of life.

    What is there really to say on that post, other than laws ought to consider the likelihood of the unborn baby's survival to term, and survival beyond infancy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    Because I'm a naive and optimistic person at heart. I struggle with dismissing opposing views and giving up ...

    I have, however, avoided discussion with him on other topics, because of what you stated ...
    I'm not asking for a press agent here. If you're interacting with my posts and asking and answering questions, I only ask that you extend the courtesy of presuming the other sincerely means what he or she writes. Alleged contradictions, hypocrisy, ignorance, and all. If you're unwilling to do so, just scroll past my posts or use forum features to automate the same task. I take the same attitude towards others, and I would be quite the hypocrite to deny them a similar approach.

    online gaming forum vs person to person
    Some of my approach here is limited in applicability to internet strangers. Having a discussion face-to-face on abortion is a very different enterprise.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  4. #7244
    Elemental Lord unfilteredJW's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    8,749
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Some of my approach here is limited in applicability to internet strangers. Having a discussion face-to-face on abortion is a very different enterprise.
    No it's not.
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    Yes it is. Breaking into someone’s home and sanctuary is a violation of someone’s person. When I said rape yes I meant it. Not just having your stuff taken which is disturbing enough. Breaking into someone’s home were they and their family sleeping. Yeah rape is the appropriate comparison.
    Mall Cop thinks Home Invasion ='s Rape

  5. #7245
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    It's morbid as fuck, and I don't know if these individual women have the courage to do it(I wouldn't blame them if it's too difficult), but if they're invited to speak at the Democratic National Convention next year to further shed light on the story, there might be some added political retribution against the GOP for taking the stance that they have. I don't know how anyone with any sense of decency can look at this specific situation and think it's okay for the state to challenge the medical field's determination of their best judgement.

    The actions of Paxton, and the words used when requesting the stay, should infuriate everyone. He could have strengthened the notion that Texas is willing to listen to medical experts on nuanced cases(as it applies to the exemption), but he doubled down.

    Perfect opportunity to say "see! we're not as cruel as you make us out to be!". Why didn't they take it?
    Because the cruelty sends the message they want to send to donors and more extreme voters; that they're putting their money where their mouth is and are against abortion no matter what. Those exemption they sport are smokescreen to market the extreme beliefs to more politically neutral crowds. As it's clearly seen, when push comes to shove they'd much rather double down than keep exceptions in mind, because their backers expect them to on the subject. Or they are extreme themselves from the onset and want 0 tolerance on abortion, that happens too.

    This doesn't only extent to politicians, mind. As we've seen here the talk about reasonable exceptions and finding the most broadly acceptable viewpoint quickly gives way to blaming the woman for any and all possible faults instead when a no-longer-theoretical scenario actually happens. All off a sudden it's about her and not the faulty policies, for some reason.
    It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built -Kreia

    The internet: where to every action is opposed an unequal overreaction.

  6. #7246
    The Lightbringer
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    3,288
    Seems the talking points have been going around Twitter, so I wouldn't be surprised if we suddenly see a maroon or two crawling out of the Woodwork to talk about how Trisomy 18 isn't a big deal because they're suddenly experts on a rare and almost-always fatal fetal abnormality.

  7. #7247
    Dreadlord Karreck's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Beneath you. Devouring.
    Posts
    943
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain N View Post
    You mean a guy with a sexual predator as an avatar keeps taking anti women stances? I'm shocked I tell you...Shocked!
    You know, I never made that connection before, but now I can't unsee it.
    Princesses can kill knights to rescue dragons.

  8. #7248
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    "What happened to this woman in Texas is not what I envisioned abortion law to be, even as someone who identifies as pro-life".

    That's a start.
    The Texas Law does not include exceptions for severe fetal abnormalities. I am pro-life and I support exceptions for severe fetal abnormalities. The Texas case appears to be one.

    I absolutely do extend that courtesy. But that doesn't mean I have the energy to argue with you about any and all other topics. You rarely cede any points. It's frankly exhausting sometimes to see points I make to you be completely ignored or not acknowledged. You may actually be ceding them on your end, but not quoting certain things except ones you can argue more on gives the impression that you either aren't reading them, or aren't acknowledging their existence.

    Ignoring people on forum's is not in my DNA, unless it's extreme cases of things like threats or violence, etc. Which doesn't fly here anyway. If it did, I wouldn't be here. I simply read your posts in other topics, and mentally tell myself to not reply.
    I also see people rarely cede any points to the pro-life arguments, if that matters. Not that there's anybody else around here that actually argues from that position. I'd diagnose what you're saying here as stemming from such an unbalanced distribution of perspectives more than anything else. (And being literally the only person in opposition to certain perspectives does contribute towards speaking only towards the specific subject matter, instead of following from tangent to tangent to everyone's satisfaction)

    In case it wasn't clear to you or anyone else, I don't blame or think less of people without energy to dispute the points, point-by-point.

    I approach all discussions as if we were face-to-face. I tend to be more of a smartass in online discussions, however.

    I think I finally understand you, though. You're a contrarian. I'm a conflict solver. We're like water and oil. If you're insistent on being this kind of person they keep saying you are, whether it's because you enjoy being that person, or don't care what anyone thinks of you as a person, that's on you. I guess I just figured that with someone with as much knowledge as you have, you'd use those abilities in a better, more human(compassionate?) way. I think I've finally learned that lesson with you. Sorry to everyone else for taking this long.
    I'm a bit of a contrarian in that I post on an internet forum where I'm fairly sure to represent the minority position in every issue no matter which topic, but I do enjoy sincere disagreement. We all learn more when everybody in the room isn't already thinking the same thing. But that's not contrarianism for its own sake. These are real disagreements and I want to get to the most fundamental level to where they happen. I'm uninterested in posting dumb "+1 to what that guy said" when a certain state does something we all disagree with; it all feels like mob mentality at an internet level and useless.

    Sincerely, I don't fully apprehend what's meant by being "insistent on being this kind of person they keep saying you are." That feels like you're indulging in labels that you've previously sworn off. I'll try to be as clear as I can be. This forum fairly represents a left-wing view on cultural issues, in the American context of left-wing, and lacks a diversity of posters with contrary opinions. If these arguing positions were more evenly matched in number of posters and frequency of interaction, there would be less apprehension that the "other" was disagreeing for bad motives. If the reverse were true, and there were multiple Chonogos that wondered why the pro-choice side weren't ceding points and compromising towards the humanity of unborn humans, I'm sure that I'd find myself among them. Again, I could choose to interact in those venues instead of this one, and never find myself outside a bubble of shared beliefs.

    I think the whole principle of "Democracy" involves crossing between "bubbles" and choosing uncomfortable situations that mean you can never really be sure if you're dealing with an ideologue that won't see reason. It's always going to feel like oil and water. But maybe the exchange of ideas and perspectives makes us all more cognizant about what underlies the conflict, instead of just blasting off about Trumpers all day and being a smartass about the outgroup while speaking to the ingroup. There's enough of that as-is. And if Democracy means dismissing far-afield political opinions just for their distance and inability to bridge that gap, then so be it. There is a majority mechanism in the vote for resolution. The resulting political polarization within-state and within-area already occurs across this country. But maybe there's a happy interchange on the internet where people don't agree, but can at least discuss on equal terms with the "other."
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  9. #7249
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,498
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I also see people rarely cede any points to the pro-life arguments, if that matters.
    In full and complete honesty; if a pro-life advocate can offer me a point on which I can agree with the fundamental framing of the point as a legitimate point that's relevant to the discussion, I'd be more than happy to so cede such a point for the sake of discussion.

    I have, in fact, asked pro-life advocates, including yourself, repeatedly, over years, both here and elsewhere, to offer me any such point for consideration.

    I have been offered no such thing in response. Literally, not one point I can "cede", because every single point boils down to some variation on the following;

    1> Religious or pseudo-religious views which have no relevance to law. Religious dogma is fine for the personal choices of those who follow that faith, but that's where their relevance ends.
    2> Misogyny. Either straight or couched in ways to try and conceal it. But it's a very thin veneer, and easily exposed on scrutiny.
    3> Bafflingly misinformed takes on biology, which are discarded immediately because they're just factually incorrect and not a basis for argument.
    4> A wildly inconsistent take on human rights that inevitably, on scrutiny, is twisted beyond reason to conceal an argument rooted in one of the above 3.

    That's it. Every single time. From every pro-life advocate. Never anything new, always these same points, over and over.

    Give me something reasonable, and we can discuss. Pull out one of these debunked chestnuts for the umpteenth time, and it'll be summarily discarded because it's been so often debunked it doesn't bear retreading.

    This goes for anyone else; give me something. Because as it stands, I've examined pro-life arguments from all sides I can find, every attempt to justify them, and it's always some ethical horror lurking behind the curtains. Without fail. Me examining and condemning what I find is not the same as me not considering an argument. If you tell me we need to eliminate the Jews because they're trying to control the world, me pointing out you're an anti-semitic bigot because there's no basis for any of that shit anywhere is the only appropriate response. Because it's not a reasonable take. There's no actual argument, no valid points for consideration. Same with the pro-life movement, which is equally objectionable.


  10. #7250
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    Another small step by mankind. A bit of a robotic response, but maybe that's who you are. I can accept that, with the usual caveat I give you which is maybe say that first, without being prodded to do so.
    Again, we're probably engaging on an internet forum with different purposes.

    There it is again. Contrarianism. I'm talking directly to you and you whatabouted me.
    I'm just trying to contextualize your assertions regarding "you rarely cede any points." In its proper context, ceding points on culturally-charged issues is universally rare.

    Let's try a little game then.

    I've learned alot about your position, even though it took hours out of both our times to write novels past each other on this subject. I even reiterate your learned positions to you without pushback.

    I have no indication whatsoever that you're learned anything about mine, except maybe that I'm more receptive to having discussion with you. Why don't I have that indication? Because you never say. I don't need you to like my posts, but short snips like "can't argue with this" or "we agree" are something every civil debates involve, whether it's to colleagues, friends, family, online friends, etc. People do it for a reason.
    I've learned that you're less argumentative with post-viability abortion restrictions than you are with someone favoring early-term abortion restrictions. You allow others to be sincere more than the thread-average. You think that late-term abortion restrictions are unnecessary, and there's basically zero doctors who would perform them for less than the absolutely critical reasons we agree on. You also disagree with pejorative labels on each side.

    You require a little more than the hours invested in responding to each other to "prove" that we each think the dialogue is worthwhile. I attribute a little more on that front than you, but we're all different.

    That's alot of word-salad-adjacing content there, but my point was this - if someone tells you you're a horrible person, it would seem prudent to me that you defend yourself against such. Not every time obviously, given your correct assertion that you're outnumbered here in your views. But something would help. By continuing the discussion over time without this kind of pushback, you've gained notoriety as being a horrible person. If that's something you enjoy, I mean I guess that's fine, but I just have to ask why it's enjoyable.

    If it makes a difference, I've grown up my entire life surrounded by conservatives. Contrary to what you might think, and to what you're asserting above, being in the minority didn't mean I had to accept the derogatory remarks about my character that have been said to me over the years. I've always found solace in finding people that have a similar worldview to me, but I always felt I still needed to engage conservatives. I mean engage, not yell past each other.
    I just think the more ridiculous political invectives are par for the course in politics. I mostly disregard them. Politics is a little unique in this regard, with the possible addition of religion. Every major disagreement involves some subtext of the country is worse off, people are injured, money shoveled into a pit instead of curing ills, cruelty is the goal. Notoriety is pretty synonymous with difference in worldviews; but (frankly) show me the counterexample of a similarly disagreeing frequent poster on something as polarizing as abortion that isn't. I'm well aware that I'm arguing a point that will only be gained by grudging acceptance.

    I'm glad that you've been frequently exposed to differing views in your personal life. Unlike you, I bear the the derogatory remarks about my character online with high indifference. I want the contrary opinions and the facts and rational arguments that support them; impugning my character and my motives for making them would matter if this were real life and I were able to make eye contact with another. If ad hominem constitutes the beginning and the greater portion of a post, then I pay less attention to it. As I said before, political discussion will typically involve an injured party and some injustice of one or another kind.

    There is. You don't seem interested in that here. Ignore the noise and seek out people who want to come to an understanding. You had me for a little bit, but I'm honestly tired of spending way too long trying to come to an understanding with you. I can't anymore.
    Engage as much as you wish. I've already said that the extreme differences in opinion and worldview warrant a reduction to "sticking points" and sometimes the inability to come to a workable compromise. I have too much respect for you and for others that hold similar opinions to fully disengage. You didn't take up the portion of my post relating to Democracy and its facets, but I'll repeat and expand a tiny bit. If it were easy to disregard your perspective for its distance from mine, and lack of workable compromises to our mutual satisfaction, then I would be content. But Democracy recognizes that intense disagreement should be formed with words and conflict first and foremost, and the sticking points settled (for lack of a better term) by majority vote. It never promised an easy fight. It only promised a fight falling short of actual discivic violent conflict, or maybe an offramp prior to national divorce for irreconcilable differences. I'll say once again that I don't accept the usual vitriol hurled against me, but I condition it on the impersonal medium of the internet and do not feel so obligated to forcefully combat what's said against me.
    Last edited by tehdang; 2023-12-13 at 05:42 AM.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  11. #7251
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I'm a bit of a contrarian in that I post on an internet forum where I'm fairly sure to represent the minority position in every issue no matter which topic, but I do enjoy sincere disagreement. We all learn more when everybody in the room isn't already thinking the same thing. But that's not contrarianism for its own sake.
    A lot of word salad just to say you are contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

    When you take the minority position not because it's the right or justified one, but because it's "the minority position in every issue no matter which topic", you are contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I think the whole principle of "Democracy" involves crossing between "bubbles" and choosing uncomfortable situations that mean you can never really be sure if you're dealing with an ideologue that won't see reason.
    And again, here you demand people respond to you with standards you are wholly incapable of meeting yourself.

    You, by your own admission, post in a bubble of your own making and refuse to leave it when you state you always side with the minority regardless of the actual circumstances involved, yet you demand people cross their "bubble" to enter yours.

    Then when you find people who inevitably disagree with your bad faith engagement, you yourself are uncomfortable and block them. I just wonder, are you anything more than a hypocritical bag of psychological projections? Or maybe that's the entire point, you don't argue outside of your echo chamber because you don't believe in democracy.
    "My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility

    Prediction for the future

  12. #7252
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    Arguments between people with opposing views shouldn't always have to be contentious
    Arguments between people with opposing views doesn't have to result in animosity. But arguments between people with opposing endgames will, definitely, result in animosity.

    This is not a conflict of ideas on how to improve things. This is a conflict that came from a disagreement on whether to improve things. Or even to make things worse.

    To put in less indirect terms, this is a conflict between people who want to do good, and people who vehemently oppose doing good. Not a conflict between people trying to debate each other which methods are the best for achieving good.
    "My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility

    Prediction for the future

  13. #7253
    For me the one point I may concede to the pro-life stance is whether the fetus deserves recognition as a human, at least past a point of development.

    I still think it is completely irrelevant to the point of abortion though. Our right to control our own bodies supersedes the right to life of others for very obvious reasons and trying to reverse the order of importance of these rights quickly leads to absolutely dystopic scenarios even before the corruption of cultural systems is taken into account.

  14. #7254
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    For me the one point I may concede to the pro-life stance is whether the fetus deserves recognition as a human, at least past a point of development.
    But why...when it's
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    completely irrelevant to the point of abortion
    There's absolutely no need to even entertain that distraction unless and until pro-birth slime move to repeal all eviction laws and make organ donation mandatory/compulsory.

  15. #7255
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    I think that the disconnect is partly due to the problem that most pro-choice people already concede that the fetus deserves recognition as a human at a certain point of development. Every woman that gets pregnant has that happen to them naturally, by virtue of the fact that it's living inside them. The question is whose recognition has more merit, the woman or the fetus? Who gets to decide? Pro-choice stands with the mother because they're the ones most affected by that decision, not society.

    Pro-life people tend to want to further solidify that recognition to all of society(laws), acting as if the pregnant woman herself hasn't already had that conversation. It's unnecessary in my opinion. Much of the pro-life propaganda we've seen over the years has tainted the view that women who get abortions, and the medical field that supports the ability to perform abortions, are doing so maliciously, or at the very least are seen in a negative light.
    Absolutely. It is just that you posited that question and I offered an example from a pure philosophical perspective under normative circumstances.

    The issue of bad faith is really the crucial difference in abortion legislation between the US and other places. Many other countries have significant restrictions on abortion. But there is a presumption of good faith when it comes to claiming exemptions which thankfully is very rarely tested. Meanwhile the same laws in the US would not work because as Paxton makes it clear, there can only be a presumption of bad faith; every claim of exemption will be tested with utmost hostility. The only think that can work in the US is blanket access.

    As for whether there is value in changing laws when it comes to recognition of the fetus, I confess I have not thought about that extensively. Off the top of my head I'd say that perhaps it could affect inheritance law or proportional punishment for physical assault to a pregnant person that causes fetal distress or death. Obviously the latter is not something I'd discuss for the US again because of my presumption that many states would use such a change in the worst of faith.
    Last edited by Nymrohd; 2023-12-13 at 09:19 AM.

  16. #7256
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    If I was trying to become popular in these parts, I would instantly accept your advice.
    Instead of popular why don't you shoot for being right, or just within the realm of right, rather than having one dumb ass, shitty take after the next.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    The Texas Law does not include exceptions for severe fetal abnormalities. I am pro-life and I support exceptions for severe fetal abnormalities. The Texas case appears to be one.
    "I'm okay with being awful to 99.9999999999999% of women, but that last fraction is okay." Is fucking stupid.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Again, we're probably engaging on an internet forum with different purposes.
    Yes, your purpose is to control 12 year old girls into having children, while everyone else is trying their best to not be a pedophile.

    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

  17. #7257
    Quote Originally Posted by unfilteredJW View Post
    No it's not.
    He's just saying he doesn't have the balls to be as deplorable in real life.
    “There you stand, the good man doing nothing. And while evil triumphs, and your rigid pacifism crumbles to blood stained dust, the only victory afforded to you is that you stuck true to your guns.”

  18. #7258
    How sick do you have to be to get an abortion in Texas?

    In the case of Amanda Zurawski, lead plaintiff in CRR lawsuit against Texas, the literal death bed. Her water broke early. In California, she either would have early induced labor or abortion performed. Standard treatments. However, this is Texas, and since the fetus had a weak hearbeat, she was sent home. Three days later she had severe sepsis with raging fever, and ended up in the ICU. In the aftermath, she ended up with severely scarred uterus which makes future pregnancy very dangerous.

    Cristina Nuñez's doctors had always advised her not to get pregnant. She has diabetes, end-stage renal disease and other health conditions, and when she unexpectedly did become pregnant, her health quickly deteriorated. She had to increase the amount of time she spent in dialysis, and suffered from painful blood clots. When one of her arms turned black from blood clots, she went to a Texas emergency room. She was diagnosed with a deep vein thrombosis, eclampsia and an embolism. The hospital still would not provide an abortion. She had to obtain an attorney who threatened to sue the hospital.

    The is no words to described the level of callousness of lawmakers that put forth gruesome legislations such as these and, subsequenlty, refused to make changes after seeing the detrimental effects.

    It is notable that these two cases provide the State of Texas with a chance to provide clear guidelines of what constitute “medical emergency.” Instead, the defense relied strictly on procedural ground. Such as wordings between “good faith judgement” vs. “reasonable medical judgement.” Or claiming that the women never tried to apply for medical exemptions. Disregarding the fact that several of them were already in the middle of active miscarriage when the decision to perform abortion was raised.

    Also, most of these women came from privileged backgrounds. Mrs. Zurawski and her her husband are tech workers in Austin. One of the plaintiff is a an OB/Gyn. Her colleagues and hospital refused to perform abortion for her, and she was forced to go to another state. There are likely hundreds, if not thousands of cases of women without the resources of the plaintiffs that we never heard of. All we had to do is look at Texas latest maternal mortality rate report. Which publication was delayed for months by the legislators. I would be ashamed showing those kind of numbers also.

  19. #7259
    Weirdly, Kellyanne Conway seems to be trying to save Republicans on this topic.

    Kellyanne Conway is going to Capitol Hill on Wednesday with a message for Republicans: promote contraception or risk defeat in 2024.

    The former senior counselor and campaign manager for President Donald Trump is part of a group set to brief Republicans on how they might get ahead of Democrats’ attacks that the GOP is anti-woman by talking more about protecting contraception and less about banning abortion.
    Which, if you have a deeply unpopular message on abortion access is actually a good and sensible strategy to reframe the discussion in a way that's positive for you!

    Meaningful action on contraception, they argue, could help Republicans with their own base and with Democrats dissatisfied with President Joe Biden.

    “You’ve got a fair number of Democrats saying that they want an alternative to Biden and Harris, or they may sit it out,” Conway said in an interview. “He’s especially bleeding young voters, who you would think would be animated and interested to hear about [contraception], and who are in the prime of their years and choosing to conceive or not to conceive.”
    Honestly, this would likely win back a fair amount of support for Congressional races and the like for Republicans if they could keep the extremist talk quiet and just focus on topics where there's strong public support.

    The message, they plan to stress, is that Republicans need to talk more about what they are for and less about what they oppose.

    “Republicans are like your uncle, who really loves you and loves the women in his family, but he’s bad about showing it,” Higgins said in an interview. “It’s just not in their natural vocabulary. And we’re trying to help them learn how to make this be more part of their vocabulary and tell them that they need to talk about these things that their constituents all support, and be more visible and vocal.”
    Darn, that sounds super woke to me.

    The longtime GOP pollster told POLITICO that while it’s no shock that contraception is popular, particularly as states move to outlaw most abortions, she was struck by some of the poll results, including how many conservatives believe Congress should ensure access to contraception regardless of cost.

    “I’ve been doing this for over three decades and I’m very surprised that over 8 in 10 independents and over 8 in 10 pro-lifers would agree with that,” she said. “Because some people say: ‘You may have a right to contraception but why am I paying for it?’ That’s the classic libertarian argument."
    It is the classic libertarian argument, and it's stupid and ignores the shared costs of unplanned pregnancies and children. Unless you're going to leave those suckers on the streets for charities to deal with because the state should apparently have no vested interest in ensuring abandoned children don't starve/freeze to death.

    “It won’t work,” said Sara Spain, the spokesperson for the group EMILYS List, which funds and coaches candidates who support reproductive rights. “Actions speak louder than words and voters know which lawmakers stand with the majority of Americans and which don’t. So efforts like this attempted rebrand won’t do much, because we’ve all seen their record and we’ve seen they are willing to ban abortion and contraception.”

    Organizations like EMILYS List plan to keep that record firmly on voters’ radar going into next year.
    Sara is correct here. Unless Conway can get the whole Republican party, nationally, on board with this there will be enough state-level extremists openly discussing total abortion bans "from the moment of conception" (which as a reminder is not a thing) to use as anchors around the necks of other party members.

    For example, House Republicans’ spending bills, set to come up for a vote early next year, would eliminate funding for the Title X family planning program and the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program — both of which provide contraception to millions of people who might not otherwise be able to afford it. And last summer, Senate Republicans blocked the House-passed Right to Contraception Act, which would have enshrined the right to contraception into federal law.
    Or they can just like, literally point to bills proposed by the current House Republican caucus.

    Higgins hopes the survey convinces Republican members of Congress that these efforts do not reflect their constituents’ views and play right into Democrats’ hands.

    “If any conservatives believe that this is what the pro-life world actually wants, it might help break through to them and explain to them that even among the most pro-life conservatives, you find this strong support for safe, modern, effective, accessible contraception ... available for everyone,” she said.
    It'd be nice if they at least got on board with this.

    But I don't think anyone here paying any attention has high hopes of success for Conway.

  20. #7260
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Weirdly, Kellyanne Conway seems to be trying to save Republicans on this topic.



    Which, if you have a deeply unpopular message on abortion access is actually a good and sensible strategy to reframe the discussion in a way that's positive for you!



    Honestly, this would likely win back a fair amount of support for Congressional races and the like for Republicans if they could keep the extremist talk quiet and just focus on topics where there's strong public support.



    Darn, that sounds super woke to me.



    It is the classic libertarian argument, and it's stupid and ignores the shared costs of unplanned pregnancies and children. Unless you're going to leave those suckers on the streets for charities to deal with because the state should apparently have no vested interest in ensuring abandoned children don't starve/freeze to death.



    Sara is correct here. Unless Conway can get the whole Republican party, nationally, on board with this there will be enough state-level extremists openly discussing total abortion bans "from the moment of conception" (which as a reminder is not a thing) to use as anchors around the necks of other party members.



    Or they can just like, literally point to bills proposed by the current House Republican caucus.



    It'd be nice if they at least got on board with this.

    But I don't think anyone here paying any attention has high hopes of success for Conway.
    Look up states with most women living in contraceptive desert.

    Look up states with the most teenage pregnancy.

    Look up states with most repeat teenage pregnancy.

    No comment.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •