Abortion is a metaphysical issue, so there is like 25% of voters you'll never get with any pro choice legislation. That said, the vast majority of people either are pro choice, or pro life with reasonable caveats (like Josh addressed above).
You can definitely "give an inch" without "giving a mile" on these issues in a popular way with voters. The alternative is already giving a mile in the other direction, which I would expect to be the status quo going forward, assuming Democrats can't get their shit together on this.
But you don't give the whole mile. That kind of slippery slope argument is just an excuse to not have to address the very real negative impacts of banning abortions under the argument that "if you give an inch you give the mile"
OK, most of what you said made no sense (e.g., I have no idea what "yours is exactly the concern of giving an inch" means), but I find it odd that you're advocating for abortion "not being a binary issue" and yet you said above that giving an inch was giving a mile. That's binary thinking. You may want to strive for some greater logical consistency.
Democrats are excellent at converting popular sentiment into political power, but extremely bad at converting it into effective policy responses. Take the George Floyd protests for example, millions into the streets, likely a major contributing factor to taking back the White House, but absolutely no legislative or even administrative progress on the underlying issue of police abuses.
Terribly sad to see these important discussions about baby killing turned into strategies for getting votes.
If you take the time to research you will find as many experts arguing human baby vs blob of cells.
I am moderate right and see the need to treat the welfare of the mother as important as that of the child.
So I suppose in some cases I would be seen as supporting abortion. But not as a contraceptive measure. There's the rub. No middle ground.
The problem I see is that once you give the first inch you give the whole mile.
If the only thing moderating your stance is the health of the mother, you're going to have to bite the bullet on some very unpopular positions.
Would suggest maybe read the post again without an agenda.
Abortion is a metaphysical issue, so there is like 25% of voters you'll never get with any pro choice legislation. That said, the vast majority of people either are pro choice, or pro life with reasonable caveats (like Josh addressed above).
You can definitely "give an inch" without "giving a mile" on these issues in a popular way with voters. The alternative is already giving a mile in the other direction, which I would expect to be the status quo going forward, assuming Democrats can't get their shit together on this.
But you don't give the whole mile. That kind of slippery slope argument is just an excuse to not have to address the very real negative impacts of banning abortions under the argument that "if you give an inch you give the mile"
Yours is exactly the concern of giving an inch.
There are also very real impacts of allowing abortions.
Until both sides can at least acknowledge that the other has legitimate points this will be an issue with no resolution.
This is not a binary issue, but it gets framed up as Yes or No when I think there many "No But For" folks.
OK, most of what you said made no sense (e.g., I have no idea what "yours is exactly the concern of giving an inch" means), but I find it odd that you're advocating for abortion "not being a binary issue" and yet you said above that giving an inch was giving a mile. That's binary thinking. You may want to strive for some greater logical consistency.
I suggest you read posts without an agenda.
Might help you learn something.
Yeah, that's the problem...my "agenda". Got it.
Put the agenda down, Mike!
Democrats are excellent at converting popular sentiment into political power, but extremely bad at converting it into effective policy responses. Take the George Floyd protests for example, millions into the streets, likely a major contributing factor to taking back the White House, but absolutely no legislative or even administrative progress on the underlying issue of police abuses.