Quote:
Originally Posted by donquixote99
Ascribing uncompromisable sacred status to zygotes is likewise a personal care and indulgence, of a religious nature. Some people do this ascribing, some don't. It boils down to whose attitude toward a zygote should prevail, that of the person carrying it, or that of others, who thereby gain profound control over the person.
|
Yeah, the position that life begins at conception probably has religious origins. So, let's set that aside for a minute and get specific, because (with apologies to those coming at this argument with a religious axe to grind) the devil is in the details.
If Democrats could wind back the clock to 1992, and agree as a matter of principle that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare", I suspect a healthy majority of Americans could get behind that. But witnessing some of State the laws, and quasi-nonsensical positions (as we heard this week on Capitol Hill from the testimony of abortion advocates and other recent testimony from those on the left) like a woman is defined by a person's preferred identification, or maybe as with our newest SCOTUS justice a lack of willingness to take a public position on the definition of a woman, or that men can get pregnant and have abortions, and late 3rd trimester abortions are just fine regardless of circumstance, and/or abortion as a birth control method is encouraged....well, you get the idea.
As I've already documented in this thread, these are NOT mainstream ideas. In fact, as early as 2012 when Tulsi Gabbard invoked Clinton's "safe, legal and rare" phrase in a Democrat election-year debate, she was roasted for it by members of her own party. The
Dems have since expunged any trace of "safe, legal and rare" from their platform.
Most folks tend to agree with the idea that abortion isn't birth control, but should be an option in some cases, such as rape or incest (which account for a
tiny percentage of reported reasons for abortion). So-called late-term abortions are just as rare, by the way.
But that's not what this argument is really about (nor is it about "zygotes") though the comments by many in this thread would suggest otherwise. To me, it's not even about choice. If it were about choice, then more folks on the left and right of this argument might find at least a little common ground.
It can't be about "choice" when the pro-abortion crowd takes a presidential candidate to task for suggesting that the term "rare" has no place in a discussion of abortion advocacy. It can't be about choice when one side of the argument can't even agree on what a woman is. It can't be about choice when the hint of a threat to Roe V Wade prompts protests outside the homes of SCOTUS judges (which certainly appear to be in violation of Federal law, even though the current Justice Dept doesn't have the balls to enforce that law).
This is about one side advocating for abortion on demand, for any reason, any time, anywhere and there is no middle ground to that position. And sure, there are extremists on the pro-life side. At one time, there may have been some ability to find common ground on regulating abortions, but the extremists on the left now regard themselves as the "centrists" in this argument.
If I'm incorrect on this, then please let me know where in this debate the "less extreme" sides of this argument might find compromise and agreement.