The abortion issue is a losing issue for Republicans

[Tollhouse]

@Trinopus

It would depend hugely on whether the pregnancy was wanted or not. If my wife (hypothetical; I haven’t got one) was on her way to an abortion procedure, and miscarried on the way, I’d still be unhappy about it, because miscarriages are medically scarier than abortions. There’s a greater likelihood of complications. Also, miscarriages are painful and messy. No anaesthesia.

I always say that life begins when love begins. If the woman wants her baby, then it’s a person. If she doesn’t…it ain’t.

Whatever side of the aisle one is on, this is truly an odd belief. However I think this type of statement bodes worse for the prochoice side, because love does not make tissue become a person. You can love tissue all you want, but will never transform it into a human, not the best argument to bring out to defend prochoice.

[Evil_Captor]

@Blaster_Master

I think it’s difficult to say that abortion is a losing issue for Republicans. There are plenty of pro-life people who agree that abortion should be legal in at least some cases, but there’s also plenty of Republicans who will agree with that issue. I think the big reason that abortion still comes up is that there are a number of essentially single issue voters who will not vote for a pro-choice candidate; in fact, I’ve met some who are clearly pretty liberal in most other areas but, because of their religious beliefs, have very strong objections on abortion. Thus, they pretty much feel forced to vote Republican.

In fact, I think that’s the basic idea. I think most people are somewhere in the range of not wanting an abortion personally, with some or all of the typical “rape, incest, or life of mother” exceptions. So, practically speaking, for most people there’s not a whole lot of a difference between “abortions should be legal and rare” and “abortions should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest, or life of mother”, so for the majority of people, they’re not going to care a whole lot one way or the other. But how many people think abortions should be legal no matter what and care enough to make themselves essentially a single issue voter on it? OTOH, there’s a large number of people who are on the other side that see abortion as a great evil. Basically, we can’t just look at the general numbers that most people are for or against it, but rather who cares enough that it will change their vote?
Personally, I just wish the issue would go away precisely because it’s only being used to try to grab single issue voters on it and it’s not going to go anywhere. It comes up in every presidential election, but even with a fairly conservative president and SCOTUS, Roe v. Wade hasn’t been overturned yet. So, I just see the whole issue as pretty much a bunch of noise that dilutes the real issues that a candidate might actually change. This is a bit different on a state level since, obviously, states have a lot more say from free access at any time to all kinds of barriers and banning anything past what Roe v. Wade requires, so I understand it there, but not at a national level.

Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. If it were to be overturned and abortion outlawed, the Republicans would immediately lose all those single issue voters, either to apathy or the Democrats. The Supreme Court will keep it in place because the Republican appointees, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts, are all cheap partisan hacks whose decisions reflect their political beliefs.

[Trinopus]

@Tollhouse

Whatever side of the aisle one is on, this is truly an odd belief. However I think this type of statement bodes worse for the prochoice side, because love does not make tissue become a person. You can love tissue all you want, but will never transform it into a human, not the best argument to bring out to defend prochoice.

I primarily value it because it indicates that there is no contradiction in holding a pro-choice view on abortion, and yet also favoring fetal homicide laws. That the fetus is wanted (set aside loved, just emphasize wanted) makes the difference.

@Evil_Captor

. . . the Republican appointees, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts, are all cheap partisan hacks whose decisions reflect their political beliefs.

But do they have the ability to make that decision at the meta-level you indicate? I see S, A, T, and maybe R as having such strong political beliefs against abortion as to let that sway their votes, and that they might very well not have the wisdom to see it through to the real consequences of their actions. I see them as too focused on the immediate gratification of the overturn of Roe, without the depth of thought to worry about what would happen next.

I see them as near-sighted cheap partisan hacks.

[lance_strongarm]

@Trinopus

I primarily value it because it indicates that there is no contradiction in holding a pro-choice view on abortion, and yet also favoring fetal homicide laws. That the fetus is wanted (set aside loved, just emphasize wanted) makes the difference.

To resurrect an old thread:

To say that a fetus can be destroyed if it isn’t wanted, but protected by murder laws if it is wanted is like saying the same for a born child. And that would of course be just as absurd.

If a fetus can be protected from “murder” then that must apply to all who would destroy it, including its own mother. If not, anyone can. Otherwise, you’d be declaring that certain people have the right to commit murder, simply based on how they feel about the victim.

Fetal “murder” statutes could still exist on the grounds that the mother has lost something of value to her though, like property. It would be a crime against the mother, not murder.

[Evil_Captor]

@Trinopus

But do they have the ability to make that decision at the meta-level you indicate? I see S, A, T, and maybe R as having such strong political beliefs against abortion as to let that sway their votes, and that they might very well not have the wisdom to see it through to the real consequences of their actions. I see them as too focused on the immediate gratification of the overturn of Roe, without the depth of thought to worry about what would happen next.

I see them as near-sighted cheap partisan hacks.

Even if the justices were as nearsighted as you think, I’m sure there will be plenty of Republican operatives who will remind them of the political damage that overturning Roe v. Wade would do to the Republican party.

[adaher]

@lance_strongarm

To resurrect an old thread:

To say that a fetus can be destroyed if it isn’t wanted, but protected by murder laws if it is wanted is like saying the same for a born child. And that would of course be just as absurd.

If a fetus can be protected from “murder” then that must apply to all who would destroy it, including its own mother. If not, anyone can. Otherwise, you’d be declaring that certain people have the right to commit murder, simply based on how they feel about the victim.

Fetal “murder” statutes could still exist on the grounds that the mother has lost something of value to her though, like property. It would be a crime against the mother, not murder.

I agree with all of that, but a quibble with the last part: While killing a fetus in the commission of a crime should also be a crime, it should be treated as seriously as causing a serious injury to someone, not as murder. It would be equally absurd to sentence as if it was murder while shying away from calling it murder. NARAL at one point recommended life in prison for someone who kills a fetus, yet they didn’t name the crime they imagined had occurred. I would think that if you’re calling for life in prison, you’d want to name the crime “murder” or something just as serious sounding. Somehow “interfering with a woman’s choice” doesn’t sound like a life sentence.