3 ms·

You can frame it however you want, but there's no common ground between the abortion position of even mainstream Republican politicians and the position of the

You can frame it however you want, but there's no common ground between the abortion position of even mainstream Republican politicians and the position of the typical Democratic voter.

giantg2 2y ago
That's because the real root questions have been hidden under all the political games. Now we will likely never get answers to these because of how perverted the debate has become. The issue philosophical boils down to 1) what defines a human life, and 2) when is it acceptable to kill.
- dpkirchner 2y ago
  If this were merely a philosophical debate then yeah, we could have a lively discussion to come up with some answers that would satisfy us individually. We probably wouldn't all agree and that'd be OK. But IMO the debate is not really about that -- it's about what we do based on the answer to those questions. It's about what governments can force upon people. Should they be allowed to imprison you if those that write laws believe in something without hard evidence and for which harm is likely unprovable?
  - musicale 2y ago
    > Should they be allowed to imprison you if those that write laws believe in something without hard evidence and for which harm is likely unprovable? Should they? Maybe not - penalties that are disproportionate to provable harm seem unjust and opposed to personal liberty. Do they? Absolutely, because for certain things we've decided (rightly or wrongly) that we should lock people up. For example, a case of attempted murder can result in a life sentence, even if the attempted victim is provably very alive and physically unharmed.
  - giantg2 2y ago
    "Should they be allowed to imprison you if those that write laws believe in something without hard evidence and for which harm is likely unprovable?" They do all the time, on a variety of issues. That's part of the social contract of living in a society.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
musicale 2y ago
Do you think there is at least some amount of overlap/agreement between republicans and democrats on things like: 1) prohibiting late term abortion in non-exceptional cases, and 2) imposing some degree of penalty or liability for assault, including harm to a pregnant woman herself as well as to any potential offspring that are in development? There may also be some other areas of agreement, even between conservative republicans and democrats, on permitting certain forms of abortion in some cases (e.g. ectopic pregnancies) to save the life of the mother.

You can frame it however you want, but there's no common ground between the abortion position of even mainstream Republican politicians and the position of the typical Democratic voter.

giantg2 2y ago

That's because the real root questions have been hidden under all the political games. Now we will likely never get answers to these because of how perverted the debate has become. The issue philosophical boils down to 1) what defines a human life, and 2) when is it acceptable to kill.

dpkirchner 2y ago
If this were merely a philosophical debate then yeah, we could have a lively discussion to come up with some answers that would satisfy us individually. We probably wouldn't all agree and that'd be OK. But IMO the debate is not really about that -- it's about what we do based on the answer to those questions. It's about what governments can force upon people. Should they be allowed to imprison you if those that write laws believe in something without hard evidence and for which harm is likely unprovable?
- musicale 2y ago
  > Should they be allowed to imprison you if those that write laws believe in something without hard evidence and for which harm is likely unprovable? Should they? Maybe not - penalties that are disproportionate to provable harm seem unjust and opposed to personal liberty. Do they? Absolutely, because for certain things we've decided (rightly or wrongly) that we should lock people up. For example, a case of attempted murder can result in a life sentence, even if the attempted victim is provably very alive and physically unharmed.
- giantg2 2y ago
  "Should they be allowed to imprison you if those that write laws believe in something without hard evidence and for which harm is likely unprovable?" They do all the time, on a variety of issues. That's part of the social contract of living in a society.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

musicale 2y ago

Do you think there is at least some amount of overlap/agreement between republicans and democrats on things like: 1) prohibiting late term abortion in non-exceptional cases, and 2) imposing some degree of penalty or liability for assault, including harm to a pregnant woman herself as well as to any potential offspring that are in development? There may also be some other areas of agreement, even between conservative republicans and democrats, on permitting certain forms of abortion in some cases (e.g. ectopic pregnancies) to save the life of the mother.