100% agree with this thoughtful post. Life-long Democrat who has winced over the past week about some of the reaction to the draft decision. On a basic level, I realize that my natural state is to be uncomfortable with high levels of public anger. On the other hand, as someone who loves history and especially looking at how the past is s…
100% agree with this thoughtful post. Life-long Democrat who has winced over the past week about some of the reaction to the draft decision. On a basic level, I realize that my natural state is to be uncomfortable with high levels of public anger. On the other hand, as someone who loves history and especially looking at how the past is still present, I can see that without angry, imperfect protests, the progress we have enjoyed in many cases would not have happened.
Those who are protesting outside the homes of the SC justices, I believe, do not think they will change the minds of those justices. But their protests may very well bear other fruits. We can look to our recent past to see positive results, even if the methods were not always perfectly "peaceful."
I also wondered about the wisdom of O'Rourke and Ryan talking about supporting the right to abortion throughout pregnancy, and then I listened to a number of thoughtful podcasts pointing out that in the 2nd and especially the 3rd trimester, abortions are performed in the case of extreme birth defects where the baby isn't likely to be born alive or to die shortly after birth. Or cases where the woman is miscarrying and her health could be compromised if an intercession isn't made. They are extremely rare but sometimes necessary.
These are very nuanced situations, but late-term abortion is presented as infanticide instead of the heart-wrenching decision that it must surely be. It is illogical to think that a woman would carry her healthy pregnancy into her 7th or 8th month and then decide to end it for no other reason than inconvenience.
And then there is the presentation of adoption as a perfect cure, with little discussion of all the attendant issues with this "solution."
As with the healthcare debate, it's easier to neatly slogan the negative position, while supporters are stuck trying to persuade people who have little time for nuanced positions.
The myth of elective (Gee, I think I'll get an abortion today.") late term abortion is just another lie among the many lies that the anti-abortion movement tells.
The truth about the American public is that it does not care about nuance. It wants things, and it wants them now, and it does not care too much about how the sausage is made. But more than that, nuance often divides more than unites. The right has basically settled on 'abortion always bad.' What this means is that even if you don't hold this position, it's probably closer to what people who don't like abortion think. Most people are not all abortions should be illegal, but they tell themselves there will be exceptions. Whereas promoting 'abortions sometimes' as your maximalist argument means that you leave a lot out and a lot of people are split off from you. But then, it is always easier to be against something than for it.
I would say that third trimester abortions almost never happen unless the baby is already dead or seriously messed up somehow. Otherwise, we would call it 'birth.' I would know, I was born a full month early.
On some level though, this was always going to happen with abortion so long as we made the standard 'viability.' As science improved, the length of time that we could sustain a baby outside the womb grew longer, which meant the time to have a abortion before 'viability' became shorter. However, I didn't think they would just decide to throw the standard out all together.
Ironically, the people who say things like 'this issue is too important for the government to intrude on' most often are now saying that 'this issue is too important to leave to individuals to decide.'
Ryan will be 1/100th of the US Senate. His views on abortion will be tempered by the entire Democratic caucus which is pretty moderate.
Electing Vance will be empowering a Banana Republican caucus determined to kill democracy in the United States. Literally handing Mitch McConnell the power to continue his corrupt leadership of the Senate.
How is that you consider Ryan's position on abortion "insane" but Vance's extremist position not insane? As a moderate independent both give me pause but I also know that only Ryan will not facilitate the murder of Democracy in America.
I know nuance is a death knell. However, if you really dig down into the issues, I think you will find that Tim Ryan and Beto O'Rourke don't want restrictions because there are some--very rare--circumstances in which a late-term abortion is necessary to safe the life of the mother. A carte blanche ban on those abortions would mean that women--who wanted their babies very much and who did everything right and who are devastated to be in the position they are in--will die. That is why they oppose outright bans. It isn't because they support abortion on demand. It is because you can NEVER account for all the circumstances that may give rise to the need for a late term abortion, which, again, no one wants. A woman does not go through 6 or 7 months of pregnancy and all of the attendant hardship, and all of a sudden decide, "yeah, I changed my mind. ABORT!"
100% agree with this thoughtful post. Life-long Democrat who has winced over the past week about some of the reaction to the draft decision. On a basic level, I realize that my natural state is to be uncomfortable with high levels of public anger. On the other hand, as someone who loves history and especially looking at how the past is still present, I can see that without angry, imperfect protests, the progress we have enjoyed in many cases would not have happened.
Those who are protesting outside the homes of the SC justices, I believe, do not think they will change the minds of those justices. But their protests may very well bear other fruits. We can look to our recent past to see positive results, even if the methods were not always perfectly "peaceful."
I also wondered about the wisdom of O'Rourke and Ryan talking about supporting the right to abortion throughout pregnancy, and then I listened to a number of thoughtful podcasts pointing out that in the 2nd and especially the 3rd trimester, abortions are performed in the case of extreme birth defects where the baby isn't likely to be born alive or to die shortly after birth. Or cases where the woman is miscarrying and her health could be compromised if an intercession isn't made. They are extremely rare but sometimes necessary.
These are very nuanced situations, but late-term abortion is presented as infanticide instead of the heart-wrenching decision that it must surely be. It is illogical to think that a woman would carry her healthy pregnancy into her 7th or 8th month and then decide to end it for no other reason than inconvenience.
And then there is the presentation of adoption as a perfect cure, with little discussion of all the attendant issues with this "solution."
As with the healthcare debate, it's easier to neatly slogan the negative position, while supporters are stuck trying to persuade people who have little time for nuanced positions.
The myth of elective (Gee, I think I'll get an abortion today.") late term abortion is just another lie among the many lies that the anti-abortion movement tells.
The truth about the American public is that it does not care about nuance. It wants things, and it wants them now, and it does not care too much about how the sausage is made. But more than that, nuance often divides more than unites. The right has basically settled on 'abortion always bad.' What this means is that even if you don't hold this position, it's probably closer to what people who don't like abortion think. Most people are not all abortions should be illegal, but they tell themselves there will be exceptions. Whereas promoting 'abortions sometimes' as your maximalist argument means that you leave a lot out and a lot of people are split off from you. But then, it is always easier to be against something than for it.
I would say that third trimester abortions almost never happen unless the baby is already dead or seriously messed up somehow. Otherwise, we would call it 'birth.' I would know, I was born a full month early.
On some level though, this was always going to happen with abortion so long as we made the standard 'viability.' As science improved, the length of time that we could sustain a baby outside the womb grew longer, which meant the time to have a abortion before 'viability' became shorter. However, I didn't think they would just decide to throw the standard out all together.
Ironically, the people who say things like 'this issue is too important for the government to intrude on' most often are now saying that 'this issue is too important to leave to individuals to decide.'
Ryan will be 1/100th of the US Senate. His views on abortion will be tempered by the entire Democratic caucus which is pretty moderate.
Electing Vance will be empowering a Banana Republican caucus determined to kill democracy in the United States. Literally handing Mitch McConnell the power to continue his corrupt leadership of the Senate.
How is that you consider Ryan's position on abortion "insane" but Vance's extremist position not insane? As a moderate independent both give me pause but I also know that only Ryan will not facilitate the murder of Democracy in America.
So you're just going to what? Some sort of vote protest that will make it easier for J.D. Vance to win?
If you can't vote FOR Ryan at least vote for Ryan as a giant NO to Vance.
Please?
Perhaps he KNOWS the middle is where this country is?
I know nuance is a death knell. However, if you really dig down into the issues, I think you will find that Tim Ryan and Beto O'Rourke don't want restrictions because there are some--very rare--circumstances in which a late-term abortion is necessary to safe the life of the mother. A carte blanche ban on those abortions would mean that women--who wanted their babies very much and who did everything right and who are devastated to be in the position they are in--will die. That is why they oppose outright bans. It isn't because they support abortion on demand. It is because you can NEVER account for all the circumstances that may give rise to the need for a late term abortion, which, again, no one wants. A woman does not go through 6 or 7 months of pregnancy and all of the attendant hardship, and all of a sudden decide, "yeah, I changed my mind. ABORT!"