While I'm pro-choice, this kind of wording, from both sides, is what divides people further. To say that the average Republican voter is only pro-life so that they can have control over a women's body is completely untrue. The average Alabama Republican is against abortion because they genuinely believe that a fetus is equivalent to a live baby. It's not very hard to understand why somebody would be against aborting what they view as a live baby. Don't get me wrong, the other side does this as well.
Rhetoric like this doesn't help things. A better way to make change possible is to understand what the other side TRULY believes and help come up with a solution that you can both agree on. Why is empathy so hard?
i say this a lot on here. but I am from an uneducated working class household in the rural south with a "religious right" mentality family.
the religious right isn't open to a debate. in their minds God is on their side and siding against their political agenda and allies (i.e. the rest of the republicans) is going against God. In their minds, they think everyone on the left is "lost" without Christ and one day they will "come to Jesus, see the error of their ways" and live a "traditionally moral" life.
Smart Republicans (i.e. Karl Rove) know this, they know that abortion is condemned to highest degree in every hardcore catholic, pentecostal, baptist, and non-denominational churches across rural American and are capitalizing on it. And as /u/BoneDru already articulated these Churches have a simple mission; to control women. The ability to use contraception, plan parenthood, and have recreational sex empower women, but the scripture has a much more modest role for women and its confined to the household and wishes of their husband.
People like Karl Rove are genius, and were able to convince former union workers to vote on behalf of the management class and corporate interest citing dead babies and "the gay agenda".
you will never be able to reason with them or debate this. all we can do is educate their unplanned and unlucky children.
The average Alabama Republican is against abortion because they genuinely believe that a fetus is equivalent to a live baby.
I don't think the "average Republican" is lying in the sense that they claim to care about babies while being perfectly aware that they don't care about babies.
But their policy choices cause more abortions. That's clear, it's not even controversial. That is not consistent with the values they claim. And, golly gee, all their "solutions" involve controlling women's bodies one way or another.
If you truly want fewer abortions to happen, and you care about that to the exclusion of everything else, you really have to vote Democratic. There's just no contest.
Why is empathy so hard?
Trying to figure out what and how Republicans really think is empathy, isn't it?
I also think the title is a bit unfair to Republicans -- the abortion fight never struck me as being about controlling a woman's body so much as a (IMO artificial) moral issue. That said, at this point bothering with charitable wording seems pointless: the past has shown us compromise on this issue is impossible.
If you're tired of people like Roy Moore trying to lecture us all about morality and values despite his own horrific indiscretions, register to vote online at this link. 36 states offer registration online, and it only takes a few minutes. We get a chance to vote many of these fuckers out next year. Let us not waste that opportunity.
The moral issue /is/ about controlling a woman's body though. Many people, consciously or unconsciously, want a woman to have to "live with the consequences" of their perceived loose sexual conduct, something some conservatives consider to be immoral.
That drives me crazy! If you are truly anti abortion you should be for birth control, because it's literally the only proven way to reduce abortion.
Like, maybe we could care less about punishing people for sex and care a little more about preventing these unwanted pregnancies I'm the first place.
If you truly want fewer abortions to happen, and you care about that to the exclusion of everything else, you really have to vote Democratic. There's just no contest.
The problem there is that the question isn't analyzed solely in consequentialist terms, but in terms of whether legally permitting abortion is itself wrong and a form of endorsement of it.
Imagine if you had a college saying to its incoming freshmen men, "We don't want you to rape, but if you do, please wear a condom- they are provided free at the health center for rape or any other purpose."
It's inarguable that rape with a condom is less harmful than rape without a condom, but the act itself is so horrific that even a hint of endorsement of it is abhorrent. The consequences weren't the sole determiner of the position.
You know what help lower abortion rates? Real sex ed, broad availability of contraceptives and better support systems for people who can't support a baby and themselves at the same time all of which the Republican party opposes. Maybe if people were so heartbroken about abortion they should try and do something actually helpful and not stand in front of clinics and spit on people while waving around signs with intentionally misleading pictures.
I've seen references to articles which state that conservatives have abortions at about the same rate as non-conservatives. And then let's now forget that the right wing will gladly re-elect scum like Scott desJarlais, who will simultaneously vote rabid pro-life while also excusing his own wife's multiple abortions, along with pressuring one of his mistresses to have an abortion.
I truly believe that the average Republican voter is mostly amoral, and political evangelical groups have proven time and time again that they are hypocritical and opportunistic, above all else. it's a political theology, nothing more.
Hi all. Pro-life Alabamian here who is not voting for Roy Moore. Here is my argument to my pro-life friends on why they should NOT vote for Moore either (full disclosure, I'm an active member of the Libertarian Party of Alabama, so ultimately I'll be writing-in the LP candidate Ron Bishop):
The wise decision for Alabamians is to write-in LP-endorses Ron Bishop, but I’m getting tired of hearing people attempt to justify their continued report for child-molester Roy Moore simply because he is pro-life, so here are my thoughts on it. And I’ll be repeating some things I’ve said before, but they’re worth hearing:
1) I am pro-life. Let me be clear there.
2) The GOP has had the House, Senate and White House for about 10 months and have done nothing to curb abortions.
3) Democrats, for 8 years under Obama, did little or nothing to make it easier to get an abortion.
4) Abortion is a Constitutionally decided issue from a legal standpoint. A senator won’t change that.
5) Most importantly, because this is a decided legal issue just legislators can’t change, if you’re truly interest ed in less babies being aborted, Democratic rule does a better job of it. I’ll post a graph (this was from a Reddit post a while back), but abortions decline under Democratic presidents and increase or stay relatively the same under Republicans. Why is that? Likely because of an emphasis on women’s access to healthcare and sex education by Democrats.
6) So if you’re a single-issue voter, and if you’re interested in actual results (i.e. fewer babies being aborted) instead of talk (declaring oneself pro-life or pro-choice), your choice should be clear. It is about results, not words. I don’t care what someone says about abortion as much as I care about what actually happens to the abortion rate.
7) I’ll also add that the comparison isn’t:
Someone who favors making the legal environment less strict on abortions vs Someone who favors making the legal environment less strict on molesting teenagers.
It is: An advocate for abortion rights vs Someone who LITERALLY MOLESTED a high school girl while he was an assistant DA.
See how those are difference? Especially in light of what either party does regarding abortion rates.
The problem is that you don't listen to the overwhelming number of facts about the fetal development cycle -- there are no heads to crush in most abortions.
The other problem is that abortion is best prevented by proper birth control and sex education. Do you think it is a coincidence that Republican candidates refuse access to birth control and sex education -- and use the consequential demand for abortions as leverage?
No but female options of birth control ARE attacked routinely and its a convenient demonstration of my point that you excluded that in your post. The institutions that provide female birth control options are attacked, the lack of support for getting them is a platform of the Republican party, the ignoring of the fact that empowering women to have these options affordably is the number one means to prevent unwanted conception is nearly a universal mandate.
We shouldn't just be talking about condoms nor should you be insulting people.
To be fair, recent news would indicate that all of the other potential candidates are probably sexual predators too...
If it were solely a 'moral' issue then the male/female disparity in pro-choice support would imply women are inherently less moral, which is an absurd conclusion; therefor it must not be solely a moral issue.
Checking pew research, it shows 59 percent of women are pro choice vs 55 percent of men.
Considering US men are more likely to be conservative than US women anyway, this doesn't seem like a significant divergence. Thoughts?
Exactly, which is why the Democrats need to run pro-life candidates in places with majority pro-life constituents. Take the abortion issue away from Republicans.
The opposition to birth control and sex ed is what gets me too. It makes the abortion issue seem disingenuous.
Why does the compassion for these unborn fetuses end at birth? Once a child is born to an economically disadvantaged mother, the conversation becomes how taxpayers shouldn't support the family of a woman who shouldn't have had children, thus ensuring the child has a life of unnecessary difficulty. From my perspective, it seems like pro-life and pro-government assistance go hand-in-hand. However, the pro-life people I encounter in my family are also adamantly anti-welfare.
There isn't really a compromise position though. Anti-Abortion people can't allow for people to choose abortion. Even the best compromise is being cordoned off by the rhetoric; contraception is bad too to most of these people.
It's silly how pro life people think they have the moral high ground, but would force a 12 year old impregnated rape victim to have a baby. They fail to understand that nobody wants an abortion, but it needs to be available for various situations.
Abortion issues are more relatable to voters than sexual misconduct... no politician gives 2 shits about individuals, just mass votes.
Except taxpayers then have to subsidize the births and care of the children resulting from unintended pregnancies through programs like WIC and Medicaid.
Birth control actually saves the taxpayer money.
Or ... if we take account of the defense of Roy Moore by his pastor ... women are more likely to be sexual predators then men.
What you find absurd is a common societal tick: the assumption that women are emotionally, socially, or intellectually inferior. Its being pruned down but we've got decades worth of boomers (and some of their progeny) to go through before is negligent.
Obviously thats why there is a moral issue. What is human life and when does bodily anonymity overcome that in a pregnancy is the whole moral issue. By extension it affects women, but the central premise is not, let’s try and control women’s bodies and justify it using some logic about pregnancy. It just so happens that the debate by extension affects women’s bodies. But I agree that there are some people that unconsciously, are controlling and want women to be more conservative so it skews their beliefs.
This is a legitimate idea, but I personally think abortion is one of those issues that's too central to the Democratic message to compromise in the interests of winning. And it's hard to predict whether or not Republicans will find another wedge issue if abortion is removed from play.
You'd be surprised.
Though saying its about "controlling women" is slightly misleading. It is, but its more precisely about "women for having sex for nonreproductive purposes should not be able to avoid the consequences of it." Similar, but a nuanced difference... In other words, its less about control, and more about a vindictive desire for cosmic justice
And this isn't just subtext where it doesn't exist. Most pro-lifers don't just oppose abortion; they also oppose birth control and condoms. Which makes no sense if you want to save unborn baby lives, as those are the two most effective ways to do it by a wide margin. While simultaniously promoting abstenence only sex educatiom, which actually tends to increase the rate of unwanted pregnancies.
Thats not subtext. That's transparent as fuck.
Now there are a handful of prolifers out there who advocate for condom use, and birth control access, and sex education. And I will 100% give it to those people; they are being genuine when they say it is about "saving baby lives". Hell I'd even support them because I can agree that there is merit in reducing a need for abortion by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. Fewer unwanted pregnancies can only benefit women. But that type of prolifer is an extreme minority.
The rest of prolifers can go fuck themselves, all they care about is punishing women for being sexual.
I understand that many Democrats are hesitant about it. But I've met lots of people in my life that only vote Republican because of the abortion issue. They would absolutely vote for a pro-life Democrat. And a pro-life Democrat would likely be less fervent about restricting access to abortions in general.
To make your analogy work at all, the condoms they hand out would uhave to prevent situations arising where rape is at all a possibility.
You know, like birth control prevents abortions from having to be a consideration.
I think I get now actually what your getting at (i.e. a medically safe abortion is like raping someone while using a condom)...but that the point above yours was that providing easy access to birth control makes abortions less common. So you can understand my confusion.
You based your whole point on a statistical disparity in pro-choice support between genders... we determined that was a lie.
Doug Jones isn't a sexual predator. he just prosecutes them (along with murderers)
Funny how nine men's merit is never doubted but nine women is cause for concern over whether they earned their place.
I don't think it's exactly that abortion is more relatable, just that it's the biggest dealbreaker issue for the majority of voters in Alabama. Because of that it can be used to leverage support in the face of seemingly almost all other black marks on a candidate's record.
As long as they voted against legislation that restricts abortion access or affordability. We can't throw women under the bus for political points.
Would it really matter how much they weigh?
I think you are finding subtext where it doesn't really exist. You have actually read forum posts that suggest pro-life movements really care about controlling women over protecting fetuses
I mean Rush Limbaugh publicly called a woman a "slut" because she wanted her birth control to be covered by insurance and said that "she must be screwing everybody at college to need that much birth control" or something to that effect.
So yeah, I'll agree that it's not what everyone in the pro-life movement believes, but it's certainly tied in to a lot of conservative views. I don't know how many times I've heard the "welfare queens using abortion as birth control" meme that is so often passed around in conservative conversations on the issue as well.
Rape abortions are the vast minority and most pro lifers believe rape is valid reason for an abortion. You are using a red herring to justify ur view while dismissing the opposing view without even trying to see it from thier eyes. They see abortion as killing a baby.
I hate how manipulative people are when it comes to this subject, calling people "anti-choice" or "anti-life." Your comment nails it.
If you point out that the woman also has rights and that those rights naturally supersede any rights you want to grant the fetus, the next this out of their mouth is "well the woman knew the consequences of her actions". The desire to control people's bodies, especially regarding sex, is always just below the surface. OP may be right, they do believe that a fetus is a baby. But that's not the whole of it. The control aspect is almost always there even if it's subconscious or they have learned to not bring it up themselves.