I think the argument is that some women will still do back-alley abortions anyway, but that the total number of deaths will drop because some women will choose to carry their fetus to term instead. (“Deaths” being defined as either the death of a mother or the death of a fetus, since fetus = human being logic applies.)
So, suppose that there are 1 million abortions a year in the USA, but then abortion gets banned. Then you have 100,000 women who get back-alley abortions whereas 900,000 other pregnant women carry their fetuses to term and deliver them.
Now, out of these 100,000 aborting mothers, 20,000 die from complications. The 100,000 back-alley abortions are all “successful,” though, in terms of killing the fetus. So You get 120,000 deaths.
From the pro-life perspective, that’s a net gain of 880,000 lives saved.
That is a matter of terminology. Russians interfered in our election which may have pushed Trump over the edge, but it is a question of stole vs interfered.
The heads of the FBI, CIA & NSA have all admitted Russia interfered in our election and/or colluded with Trump.
However, would Trump have won without Russia collusion? Who knows. But collusion happened.
I think most people, including everyone in the movement against it, realize that almost always bullies are actively being bullied. Most likely, by their parents.
It doesn’t matter as much as we think it does, but it matters.
If Gore had won in 2000, we never would’ve gone to war in Iraq. For endless hundreds of thousands of soldiers and their families, this affected them deeply.
If Trump repeals the ACA, then endless tens of millions of people will have inferior health insurance, or no health insurance (24 million will lose insurance, but tens of millions more will have inferior insurance due to fewer consumer protections).
Overtime rules are changed depending on who is in charge, affecting the income of millions.
The laws passed by LBJ totally changed civil rights for blacks.
FDR’s programs affected virtually everyone (but getting those kinds of laws passed now is near impossible).
Likely their parents used bullying to get their children to comply, too. Like all bad parenting the dysfunction easily gets reproduced in the next generation. Like domestic violence and addiction issues, what children see modelled at home, they tend to manifest in their own relationships. No real surprise there, I think.
But the fight against bullying fails to address or acknowledge any such thing. Instead a child acting out what they receive at home, is treated as though the problem starts and ends with him. And he’s punished, on top of likely continued bullying at home? Never acknowledged, never addressed? The real driving cause.
And EVERYBODY making and enforcing policy on the issue knows it!
If you said “some” or “a slight majority,” I could agree. “Almost all?” No.
Not every serial killer, bully, psychopath, or jerk in the world is the result of being victimized in the past. Some people are just naturally malicious by nature. They kick kittens, trip people, just because they like it.
I’ve seen such instances as an assistant teacher myself. And no, not every policymaker “knows” that “almost all bullying stems from being a victim.”
There is much ground for legit good-faith disagreement on the issue.