Republicans are trying to find a new term for ‘pro-life’ to stave off more electoral losses

[SaysWho?]

Republicans are trying to find a new term for ‘pro-life’ to stave off more electoral losses

WWW.NBCNEWS.COM

---

Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., summarized the closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill as being focused on “pro-baby policies.”

 

Quote

“What intrigued me the most about the results was that ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life’ means something different now, that people see being pro-life as being against all abortions ... at all levels,” Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., said in an interview Thursday.

 

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said the polling made it clear to him that more specificity is needed in talking about abortion.

 

“Many voters think [‘pro-life’] means you’re for no exceptions in favor of abortion ever, ever, and ‘pro-choice’ now can mean any number of things. So the conversation was mostly oriented around how voters think of those labels, that they’ve shifted. So if you’re going to talk about the issue, you need to be specific,” Hawley said Thursday.

 

Quote

A national strategist who worked on Senate races last year said: “The issue of abortion was problematic for Republicans last cycle, so it’s no surprise [the Senate Leadership Fund] is polling public perception of the issue. It’s the smart thing to do.”

 

The National Republican Senatorial Committee, the campaign arm of Senate Republicans, “is encouraging Republicans to clearly state their opposition to a national abortion ban and support for reasonable limits on late-term abortions when babies can feel pain with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother,” a source familiar with the organization’s strategy said.

 

Quote

“I think their messaging was not the problem. Their position is the problem, and they’re going to be stuck with those positions,” Reynolds said. “At the end of the day, voters are clear in poll after poll and in election results after election results that they believe that people should have the right to make their own health care decisions, that they support abortion rights, that they supported Roe v. Wade.”

 

An NBC News poll conducted in June found that 61% of all voters said they disapproved of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 Dobbs decision, which left the legality and conditions of abortion up to the states.

 

[thewhyteboar]

Not gonna work. It’ll forever be a millstone around their neck. 

[mclumber1]

baby safety policies

[Jwheel86]

2 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said:

Not gonna work. It’ll forever be a millstone around their neck. 

 

Especially since the religious right demands extreme positions on it. 

[thewhyteboar]

2 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

Especially since the religious right demands extreme positions on it. 

Yup. You can’t go around calling your opponents baby murderers then go, well, sometimes it’s not murder. 

[GeneticBlueprint]

41 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

Especially since the religious right demands extreme positions on it. 

This. And the logical conclusion of the term pro-“life” is that any abortion is murder. Which is obviously wrong but that’s the only rational conclusion you can have if you’re pro life. 

[chakoo]

I’m sure they’ll just move on to the next stage from pro life to ***k women.

[TUFKAK]

1 hour ago, chakoo said:

I’m sure they’ll just move on to the next stage from pro life to ***k women.

Even though they’ve failed at achieving that their entire lives.

[crispy4000]

I see nothing wrong with the term pro-life when applied consistently.  That doesn't fit the Republican party though.

 

 

10 hours ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

This. And the logical conclusion of the term pro-“life” is that any abortion is murder. Which is obviously wrong but that’s the only rational conclusion you can have if you’re pro life. 

 

A successful abortion is the premeditated and intentional killing of a very young member of the human race.  I find that to be the only rational view of what abortion is.  So I consider it a greater burden to argue that this is not murder, and likewise, to address opposing views of when exactly a human being is/isn't developed enough to be worth protecting from being intentionally killed.

That said, a significant portion of the population considers it not truly human yet if it doesn't fall under their belief of when abortion is okay.  So culpability is a question.

 

I also believe our justice system should be oriented to not punish women who abort so much as the providers.  It's subjected to laws, after all.  The fundamental moral question of abortion isn't.

[CitizenVectron]

15 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

I see nothing wrong with the term pro-life when applied consistently.  That doesn't fit the Republican party though.

 

 

 

A successful abortion is the premeditated and intentional killing of a very young member of the human race.  I find that to be the only rational view of what abortion is.  So I consider it a greater burden to argue that this is not murder, and likewise, to address opposing views of when exactly a human being is/isn't developed enough to be worth protection.

That said, a significant portion of the population considers it not truly human yet if it doesn't fall under their belief of when abortion is okay.  So culpability is a question.

 

I also believe our justice system should be oriented to not punish women who abort so much as the providers.  It's subjected to laws, after all.  The fundamental moral question of abortion isn't.

 

Yeah no, dawg. Most abortions (like, the vast majority) happen when the fetus is literally a tiny clump of unorganized cells. Nothing human about that.

[TUFKAK]

This gonna be good.

 

Anyway, fuck the forced birth crowd keep pushing them back into the smaller minority position.

[crispy4000]

11 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Yeah no, dawg. Most abortions (like, the vast majority) happen when the fetus is literally a tiny clump of unorganized cells. Nothing human about that.

 

Better go correct some wiki articles then.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

36 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

A successful abortion is the premeditated and intentional killing of a very young member of the human race.  I find that to be the only rational view of what abortion is.  So I consider it a greater burden to argue that this is not murder, and likewise, to address opposing views of when exactly a human being is/isn't developed enough to be worth protecting from being intentionally killed.

 

On a personal level, I really have no significant objections to this characterization of abortion in this manner at all.  I'm quite alright with supporting this form of "murder" just as I'm quite comfortable with supporting many, many other forms of it as well.

 

As for when a human being is or isn't developed enough to deserve legal protection from being intentionally killed either from abortion or euthanasia, for me it largely comes down to whether the human in question has either developed physical or emotional bonds with others or others have developed those types of bonds with that human.

 

Vishnu knows that I wished that I could've put my bed-ridden husk of a father out of his misery during the last years of his life as the man I knew as my dad had left this world mentally long before his physical body did.  The fact that I couldn't do that without being punished by the justice system for "murder" will anger me until the day I breathe my own final breath.

[CitizenVectron]

7 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

Better go correct some wiki articles then.

 

90%+ of abortions happen before 12 weeks of pregnancy. Even at the tail end of that, the fetus is nothing more than a shell that looks like a tiny, tiny human-shaped lump. There is no conscious activity, or even anything approaching a worm, in terms of neural activity. 

 

Fetuses are not humans, they are potential humans. And, honestly...there is nothing immoral about aborting them. 

[GeneticBlueprint]

2 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

On a personal level, I really have no significant objections to this characterization of abortion in this manner at all.  I'm quite alright with supporting this form of "murder" just as I'm quite comfortable with supporting many, many other forms of it as well.

 

As for when a human being is or isn't developed enough to deserve protection from being intentionally killed either from abortion or euthanasia, for me it largely comes down to whether the human in question has either developed physical or emotional bonds with others or others have developed those types of bonds with that human.  

 

Since the vast majority of "pro-life" people use God as their justification, then God is the greatest abortionist of all. And if abortion is murder, then we shouldn't have any moral qualms about following God's example.

[TUFKAK]

6 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

90%+ of abortions happen before 12 weeks of pregnancy. Even at the tail end of that, the fetus is nothing more than a shell that looks like a tiny, tiny human-shaped lump. There is no conscious activity, or even anything approaching a worm, in terms of neural activity. 

 

Fetuses are not humans, they are potential humans. And, honestly...there is nothing immoral about aborting them. 

It doesn’t even matter if they are humans, we get too drawn into letting the forced birthers setting the tone for the debate. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Just now, GeneticBlueprint said:

 

Since the vast majority of "pro-life" people use God as their justification, then God is the greatest abortionist of all. And if abortion is murder, then we shouldn't have any moral qualms about following God's example.

 

Pro-life advocates would probably be better off using the secular libertarian argument against abortion rather than the purely religious one.

[ort]

 

If following the Bible was what they were really concerned about they would be protesting in front of banks and not abortion clinics.

[crispy4000]

15 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

90%+ of abortions happen before 12 weeks of pregnancy. Even at the tail end of that, the fetus is nothing more than a shell that looks like a tiny, tiny human-shaped lump. There is no conscious activity, or even anything approaching a worm, in terms of neural activity. 

 

Fetuses are not humans, they are potential humans. And, honestly...there is nothing immoral about aborting them. 

 

You have a different definition of human than embryologists.

 

  

21 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

On a personal level, I really have no significant objections to this characterization of abortion in this manner at all.  I'm quite alright with supporting this form of "murder" just as I'm quite comfortable with supporting many, many other forms of it as well.

 

I can appreciate that consistency from you.  It's not trying to sidestep anything.

 

21 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

As for when a human being is or isn't developed enough to deserve protection from being intentionally killed either from abortion or euthanasia, for me it largely comes down to whether the human in question has either developed physical or emotional bonds with others or others have developed those types of bonds with that human.  

 

Should probably regulate that to the emotional.  Could be argued there is no stronger physical bond than in utero.

 

As for emotional attachments, I think it raises questions about what is enough of an emotional bond to suffice, on either side.  Could be used to suggest we kill foster kids, taken to an extreme.  I'd rather say that we naturally develop attachments, so a temporary lack of them shouldn't be an excuse to cut our development short.

[osxmatt]

‘Pro-choice’ is a popular alternative. 
 

Maybe they should consider that. 

[GeneticBlueprint]

1 minute ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

Pro-life advocates would probably be better off using the secular libertarian argument against abortion rather than the purely religious one.

 

Depends who you're talking to. I'm willing to meet people where they stand and argue from their worldview. When people did that to me it helped shake off a lot of the indoctrination of my youth.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 minute ago, crispy4000 said:

As for emotional attachments, I think it raises questions about what is enough of an emotional bond to suffice, on either side.  Could be used to suggest we kill foster kids, taken to an extreme.

 

While it certainly could be used in that manner in the extreme, the most logical, rational view would be to reserve the application to those humans that are on the extremes of the lifespan spectrum: pre-birth or (effectively) post-life.

[CitizenVectron]

8 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

 

 

As for emotional attachments, I think it raises questions about what is enough of an emotional bond to suffice, on either side.  Could be used to suggest we kill foster kids, taken to an extreme.  I'd rather say that we naturally develop attachments, so a temporary lack of them shouldn't be an excuse to cut our development short.

 

I mean, you're not worth taking seriously if you're suggesting that killing actual kids is on the same level of consideration. Kids are sapient and conscious, fetuses are neither. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

3 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

I mean, you're not worth taking seriously if you're suggesting that killing actual kids is on the same level of consideration. Kids are sapient and conscious, fetuses are neither. 

 

You mean "sentient" rather than "sapient".

[crispy4000]

24 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

I mean, you're not worth taking seriously if you're suggesting that killing actual kids is on the same level of consideration. Kids are sapient and conscious, fetuses are neither. 

You missed it when I said taken to an extreme.  It was testing his argument’s limits to get to a clearer picture of his understanding.  (Which served its purpose:)

 

26 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

While it certainly could be used in that manner in the extreme, the most logical, rational view would be to reserve the application to those humans that are on the extremes of the lifespan spectrum: pre-birth or (effectively) post-life.

 

Pre-birth there is scientific evidence of emotional attachments of child to mother.  
 

But even there wasn’t, I don’t understand a faucet of development (ie: the capacity for emotional bonds) as being something to deprive a human being of if natural processes were to otherwise continue. 

 

Human also does a lot of the heavy lifting.  We kill animals for our benefit all the time that form emotional bonds deeper than a newborn.  All the more reason to think carefully about why the term applies.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Republicans in VA, now that we have a competitive election in November, are just full on lying about support for a 15 week ban. They’ll say that to get elected but there’s a 100% chance they pull the rug out from any moron dumb enough to vote for them and they’ll push for the fullest ban possible

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

13 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Pre-birth there is evidence of emotional attachments of child to mother.  
 

But even there wasn’t, I don’t understand a faucet of development (ie: the capacity for emotional bonds) being something to deprive a human being of if natural processes were to continue.

 

Human does a lot of the heavy lifting.  We kill animals for our benefit all the time that form emotional bonds deeper than a newborn.

 

I'm working on the presumption that by default all aspects of human existence (emotional or otherwise) exist on a higher level of importance (for lack of a better word) than those for a non-human animal.  Not that I actually believe this in the least, mind you - the personal grief I felt for the passing of my father in February 2022 absolutely pales in comparison to that which I continue to feel for the loss of Inuk in July 2022.

 

The development of emotional bonds may be an imperfect metric by which to evaluate whether a life is worth protecting, but it's perhaps the most "human" one possible. 

[mclumber1]

31 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Fetuses are not humans, they are potential humans. And, honestly...there is nothing immoral about aborting them. 

 

Would there be anything immoral about aborting the fetus of a panda?

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Just now, mclumber1 said:

 

Would there be anything immoral about aborting the fetus of a panda?

Considering that pandas are an evolutionary mistake that should've gone extinct a while ago, absolutely not.

[Ominous]

Forced birth. Just say it. That's as much as it is...at best. 

[crispy4000]

17 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

I'm working on the presumption that by default all aspects of human existence (emotional or otherwise) exist on a higher level of importance (for lack of a better word) than those for a non-human animal.  Not that I actually believe this, mind you - the personal grief I felt for the passing of my father in February 2022 absolutely pales in comparison to that which I continue to feel for the loss of Inuk in July 2022.

 

The development of emotional bonds may be an imperfect metric by which to evaluate whether a life is worth protecting, but it's perhaps the most "human" one possible. 

Then why do you work under that presumption?   Or bother to use it?  I think that’s worth questioning.

 

I do use it, because generally, I believe in that members of a rational kind shouldn’t be killing each other.  Even if for a time, we’re not capable of that thought processing.  It’s what we’re oriented towards.

[CitizenVectron]

47 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

You mean "sentient" rather than "sapient".

 

In this case I did mean to use sapient in an effort to differentiate the "human" experience from other sentient animals (in that we have higher cognition/awareness of awareness, more than just the sentient internal experience). But either works for the point of my example.

[CitizenVectron]

17 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Then why do you work under that presumption?   Or bother to use it?  I think that’s worth questioning.

 

I do use it, because generally, I believe in that members of a rational kind shouldn’t be killing each other.  Even if for a time, we’re not capable of that thought processing.  It’s what we’re oriented towards.

 

Fetuses aren't rational beings, and they aren't guaranteed to be rational beings. It's all hypothetical. By letting one fetus develop, you could be preventing a second fetus from developing a few months later. That's also hypothetical murder, just taken back a step further.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

26 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Then why do you work under that presumption?   Or bother to use it?  I think that’s worth questioning.

 

I use that presumption because it strikes me as "rational" to acknowledge that a more evolved creature that generally operates at a higher level of sentience/sapience is inherently of greater overall significance than one that does not.

[TUFKAK]

A better argument is one of agency and consent. A human being is not entitled to the body of another human being for any reason, it’s not shocking chuds have an issue with this concept, and are only allowed access to said body as long as the other human consents to it. therefore the fetus does not have a right to continue its existence in the birthing persons body without their consent.
 

I can’t be coerced to donate an organ, skin, fucking hair, to another human but for some reason many “rational kind” types have no issuing denying a fundamental aspect of our humanity to others. They are not worth engaging with.
 

This is why I’m saying by allowing them to frame the fight we do ourselves a disservice as we are immediately on the defensive