by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .2,3442,3452,3462,3472,3482,3492,350. . .2,5072,508»

Roborian wrote:NBC has called it-the measure failed, in a lower-turnout primary election set up with the intention of boosting support, in a state well to the right of the national median. Now we just have to see how bad the margin is.

Can’t say I’m surprised, though very deeply saddened. For once, I’ll be the pessimist and say that I do not have much faith that these referendums will work in favor of the pro life movement. The immediate swell of cross country protests after Roe’s downfall I think made that obvious. I hope I’m wrong, I’d love to be wrong in this case

Meanwhile, in other news: https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/08/02/compassion-tolerance-and-love-for-others

Horatius Cocles wrote:Can’t say I’m surprised, though very deeply saddened. For once, I’ll be the pessimist and say that I do not have much faith that these referendums will work in favor of the pro life movement. The immediate swell of cross country protests after Roe’s downfall I think made that obvious. I hope I’m wrong, I’d love to be wrong in this case

I'm pessimistic, for sure. Only 40% support in a fairly conservative state and the 18th most Republican state as of the 2020 presidential election. A lot of "pro-life" politicians don't have much spine, and I won't be surprised if a lot of them abandon the pro-life movement as a losing cause -- a cause they used to get donations only when they thought the re-criminalization of abortion was a pipe dream. Politicians might flake, donors might flake, and the "establishment" will take a victory lap.

On the other hand, large numbers of Americans -- maybe a majority -- don't support abortion on demand.

https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ryh-rxxrn0w6mcah12ztdw.png

In the mid-19th century, the abolitionists wanted and envisioned a society where people would be treated as equals. They couldn't achieve that aspiration. They settled for a society where slavery was outlawed, but the newly freed people couldn't vote and were treated as second-class citizens. It would take another century for American society to take the next step.

The comparison isn't perfect, but the American pro-life movement today might have to settle for something less.

The average abortion-lobby advertisement or "news" (propaganda) piece goes something like this: Jane and Joe are wife and husband. They wanted a baby more than anything. For years they tried to get pregnant, and eventually they did. However, at a routine appointment, Jane's OBGYN told her that her baby had an unspeakably grisly medical condition. After talking with her partner, parents, and pastor, Jane decided to abort the pregnancy. It wasn't an easy decision. She knew this might be the only pregnancy she'd ever have. Ultimately, she made the decision that was right for her, Joe, and their family. When voters go to the polls on election day, the decision they'll face is simple: Should women like Jane decide what to do with their pregnancies, or should the legislators at the state capitol have that power? You make the choice.

It's not ideal, but I think I'm willing to make the same hard choice that activists made in the 19th century. With much compunction, I'll give up on full equality if we can eliminate the most abusive practice -- slavery at that time, abortion on demand in this time. Maybe, after another 100 years, society will be prepared to take the next step.

Roborian wrote:Unfortunately, I fear that more recent history may cast doubt on the idea that moderating has any significant effect. In 2006, South Dakota put up a referendum to ban all abortions save to protect the life of the mother, and saw it fail 45%-55%. In 2008, they put up an amended referendum that added exemptions for rape and incest...and it failed 45% to 55%. Particularly with the way that media coverage and campaigning go, I doubt that the details of referenda actually matter very deeply, particularly to voters who may not even read the full text once in the booth, let alone before. The simplified media framing comes off as 'Abortion ban or no abortion ban', and I imagine it is easier for most people who would actually be closer to the pro-life position, heartbeat-bill advocates, first trimester, etc., to see the ban as extreme, without being fully aware of just how extensive and late-term the alternative is.

https://ballotpedia.org/South_Dakota_Referendum_6,_Abortion_Ban_Measure_(2006)
https://ballotpedia.org/South_Dakota_Initiative_11,_Abortion_Ban_Measure_(2008)

Tonight's referendum and the 2008 South Dakota referendum suffer from the same "flaw." They both include language exempting maternal life, rape, and incest. However, they don't include exemptions for maternal health and fetal defects. As long as the abortion lobby can brandish the grossly disfigured, seriously ill, and disabled child and use him as a political weapon, it might not be possible to win abortion referendums in this day and age. That's unfortunate, but a 90% win would be a whole lot better than a 100% loss.

If moderate-red states, such as Kansas (the 18th most Republican state in the most recent presidential election), are willing to meet me at 90%, I'll begrudgingly give up 10% of my goal. If the Gallup poll is to be believed, about 67% of Americans support fetal defects exceptions. Only 45% think abortion should be legal for any reason in the first trimester, only 20% in the third trimester.

Pick up the pieces. Go back to the drawing board. Write up an amendment that includes all the exceptions the majority wants. Shut down the abortion clinics, but don't be overaggressive in enforcement. Let people have their exceptions, imprison the worst actors, and slap others on the wrist (e.g., a small fine). Again, it's not ideal, but it would eliminate most abortions. Criminal law never gets rid of all crimes.

The Gallant Old Republic, Horatius Cocles, Phydios, Lds church, and 2 othersNew Kiwis, and Saptasindhavah

Culture of Life wrote:

Tonight's referendum and the 2008 South Dakota referendum suffer from the same "flaw." They both include language exempting maternal life, rape, and incest. However, they don't include exemptions for maternal health and fetal defects. As long as the abortion lobby can brandish the grossly disfigured, seriously ill, and disabled child and use him as a political weapon, it might not be possible to win abortion referendums in this day and age. That's unfortunate, but a 90% win would be a whole lot better than a 100% loss.

If moderate-red states, such as Kansas (the 18th most Republican state in the most recent presidential election), are willing to meet me at 90%, I'll begrudgingly give up 10% of my goal. If the Gallup poll is to be believed, about 67% of Americans support fetal defects exceptions. Only 45% think abortion should be legal for any reason in the first trimester, only 20% in the third trimester.

Pick up the pieces. Go back to the drawing board. Write up an amendment that includes all the exceptions the majority wants. Shut down the abortion clinics, but don't be overaggressive in enforcement. Let people have their exceptions, imprison the worst actors, and slap others on the wrist (e.g., a small fine). Again, it's not ideal, but it would eliminate most abortions. Criminal law never gets rid of all crimes.

At a certain point, I do not know if I am willing to keep compromising. Life of the mother, rape, I can stomach those exemptions, incest I have even more doubts on, but fine, but when we get to 'health of the mother', which is almost always used as a blank check for approving abortion by doctors, I think the needle has been pushed too far. At that point you are neither, to use the example, creating equality or outlawing slavery, you are just regulating the size of the whip the slaveowner can use, and that is not sufficient. For a law, especially federally, sure, go bit-by-bit, but for actual amendments to the state Constitution, you have to make a stand somewhere.

But it is all irrelevant, because I really just do not think the nuance is there among the voting public much at all beyond 'abortion vs. no abortion'. In Colorado, just last cycle, they had a referendum to ban abortion after 22 weeks, not even a 90% win, but a 1% win. Colorado is blue, but we are talking about something that, by polling, as you note, only a fraction of a percent of people support, an incredibly limited ban only to the late second/third trimester. It got absolutely crushed 41%-59%.

https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Proposition_115,_22-Week_Abortion_Ban_Initiative_(2020)

Voting behavior just does not match polling, and I do not see any convincing evidence that carving out extremely broad exemptions from abortion would even get them passed, but I do see in that a far greater danger of abandoning the core positions of the pro-life movement. There comes a point where compromising on policy becomes compromising your beliefs, and even if that is not a moral problem, it is a practical one. On the question of marriage, the decision to compromise and support civil unions did not preserve marriage or even buy it time, it accelerated the process, because people said "If you allow that, why not allow this?", and soon even previously pro-marriage Republicans were going along. I see the same thing happening with broad abortion exemptions, the public perception of "If all these abortions are fine, why not those too?" and Republicans abandoning the base principle of human life being worthy of protection at all stages.

I can stomach pushing the needle back to heartbeat bans. Those are well-situated politically/rhetorically, and still broadly defend life. But going any farther than that, and honestly, even that is pushing things dangerously far, is going to end up with at best marginally improved polling performance, and quite likely the gutting of the Republican stance on the life issue.

[nation][/nation]

Saptasindhavah wrote:I wonder if this applies to the Amish at all. Amish communities have church led, community funded insurance schemes.
While I'm certain abortion is extremely rare, I wonder if the state would force them to fund it if that were to happen.

I'll probably regret saying anything, but can we do something about the low quality posts like this? I don't mean to single out Emu/Papaya and generally don't support censorship, but these weird semi-roleplay pooposts and WA begging are getting old.

Ouch. :(

Saptasindhavah

Emus and Papayas wrote:[nation][/nation]Ouch. :(

I just think people would appreciate it if you toned some of that down a bit. When you're being serious, you've brought up interesting things and made good points.
I'm not suggesting you shouldn't do your roleplay or talk about WA stuff, just, as an example, maybe stop asking people to support the same thing multiple times.

Likewise, my post wasn't entirely in response to you. Another person was doing it far more aggressively a while back.

Well the good news is that the supremely better 'ERIC' won in Missouri yesterday, even if my own choice got second.

Greater adriatica

Hello fellow nations, this is the Greater Adriatica sending a message to all nations. Thank you for letting us join you and your other nations, we appreciate it. Our nation has a strong economy, and even stronger military force, we try to have strict gun and drug use laws to keep every citizen safe and healthy. Our government agents will send you more information about us shortly

La chaise-dieu

Hello everybody, this is the kingdom of la chaise-dieu. I would say to the creator of the right to life for joining you guys. Thank you

Greater adriatica

Hello La chaise-dieu

La chaise-dieu

Thx the United States of greater adriatica

La chaise-dieu wrote:Hello everybody, this is the kingdom of la chaise-dieu. I would say to the creator of the right to life for joining you guys. Thank you

Welcome.

La chaise-dieu

Thank you

This is a much more micro-level issue, and it really is impossible to determine how much effect, if any, it had on the outcome, but this could be seen as some level of possible commentary on the rhetorical choices of the referendum, specifically 'Value Them Both' as a slogan.

Morally, I see no problem with the phrase at all, but strategically, I am somewhat skeptical of it. It seems to automatically put itself on the defensive, sort of assuming the argument that pro-lifers otherwise do not value women, and I think doing so makes it come off as weaker, feeling as if it is trying to deflect criticism rather than advance a cause. As a general rule, effective social movements win through boldness in rhetoric rather than moderation, and I think a direct focus on the issue itself is a better strategy. I like the messaging of 'We are the pro-life generation', I think it is effective, and I tend to think well of 'abolitionist' messaging, where even if the policy in question is not universal abolition, the notion that the practice is an evil one is powerful and needed, as is the callback to stopping slavery. 'Value them both' while, again, entirely fine as a statement, seems to lead to an easy pro-abortion response along the line of 'Well I value the mother more', similarly, slogans such as 'pro-life is pro-woman' are inherently defensive and easy for opponents to dismiss. Abolitionist rhetoric and framing the matter as one of powerful social change are not so easy to shy away from, abolitionist language requires the pro-abortion side to address the abortion itself, specifically, or appear evasive, and has the weight of history behind it. I think that is the route the pro-life movement needs to take.

I am introducing late but The Constitutional Monarchy of Sukhi desh is a resident of this region for past 2 months! Now, due to this loyalty, I request a ministry! Culture of Life, I hope it will influence you and you will not ignore. Thanks

New west south north east

Hello all, new Nation States here. I myself am a Roman Catholic and have stood for defense of life on many occasions. I hope to point my nation to that same goal.

New west south north east wrote:Hello all, new Nation States here. I myself am a Roman Catholic and have stood for defense of life on many occasions. I hope to point my nation to that same goal.

Excellent nation name.

Roborian wrote:This is a much more micro-level issue, and it really is impossible to determine how much effect, if any, it had on the outcome, but this could be seen as some level of possible commentary on the rhetorical choices of the referendum, specifically 'Value Them Both' as a slogan.

Morally, I see no problem with the phrase at all, but strategically, I am somewhat skeptical of it. It seems to automatically put itself on the defensive, sort of assuming the argument that pro-lifers otherwise do not value women, and I think doing so makes it come off as weaker, feeling as if it is trying to deflect criticism rather than advance a cause. As a general rule, effective social movements win through boldness in rhetoric rather than moderation, and I think a direct focus on the issue itself is a better strategy.

I think you are quite correct in this. I remember the term "value them both", or something very near to it, was used in Ireland by the No campaign during the referendum on the 8th Amendment. More than anything it felt like a status quo remark, attempting to justify that everything was fine up to that point and no change was necessary, despite massive public concern to the contrary. It also offered nothing new to the debate than what was already there, while the Yes campaign offered a platform of change, something new, a solution to a perceived problem. This as we all know was the message that resonated with the people.

If the pro-life movement wants to win votes like this it needs to be radical in its messaging, offering a message of change rather than going back to the old.

Culture of Life, Phydios, Clear Bay, Roborian, and 3 othersNew Kiwis, Saptasindhavah, and Democratic republic of dixie

The Catholic State of Eire, Culture of Life, and Aawia, The Pangaean Union has passed the treaty telegramed to you by a vote of 8 for, 0 against, and 2 abstaining. Hopefully you all will pass it too.

[center]The Pangaen Union-Right to Life Alliance [/center]

[center]Signed Month Day, 2022[/center]

Article I - Purpose of Treaty

(1.) The purpose of the alliance is to strengthen and build relations between The Pangaean Union and Right to Life, through means of both diplomatic and militaristic cooperation with one another.

Article II - Maintenance of Diplomatic Relations

(1.) Both The Pangaean Union and Right to Life shall maintain embassies and retain active ambassadors to each others region.

Article III - Military Cooperation

(1.) At any given time if either The Pangaean Union or Right to Life is at risk of attack through diplomatic or militaristic means, the region at risk may call upon the other for help. If done the region called upon must take actions as they can to help.

Article IV - Ratification

(1.) This treaty shall be ceremoniously signed by xx.

(2.) This treaty shall go into effect upon its ratification by both the Pangaean Union and Right to Life in accordance with each region's laws, standards, and traditions.

(3.) This treaty shall be in effect in perpetuity, until its repeal by one of the signatory regions; however, from time to time both regions may see fit to come together again and reaffirm or amend this treaty. The repeal of this treaty by one region shall immediately release the other region from its obligations.

Indiana Abolishes Abortion!

Excellent news. Indiana's legislature has passed a bill to ban abortions in the state.

According to the legislature's website, there are three exceptions:

  1. "the abortion is necessary to prevent any serious health risk of the pregnant woman or to save the pregnant woman's life;

  2. "the fetus is diagnosed with a lethal fetal anomaly; or

  3. "the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest."

http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2022ss1/bills/senate/1

Indiana has nine abortion providers, including six abortion clinics. Each year, about 7,000 to 8,000 abortions have been performed in the state.

Christian states of arcopol

God is Great! Say yes to life!

Culture of Life, Horatius Cocles, New Kiwis, Steel Belt Empire, and 2 othersSaptasindhavah, and Democratic republic of dixie

Christian states of arcopol wrote:God is Great! Say yes to life!

I just wish that conservatives would fight this hard to preserve life after birth. In most cases I feel like we say “protect the unborn! (But after that, who cares!)” and I don’t like that

Culture of Life, New Dolgaria, Horatius Cocles, Phydios, and 4 othersNew Kiwis, Campos das vertentes, Steel Belt Empire, and Democratic republic of dixie

Saptasindhavah

Os Adoradores de Deus wrote:
I just wish that conservatives would fight this hard to preserve life after birth. In most cases I feel like we say “protect the unborn! (But after that, who cares!)” and I don’t like that

The vast majority of pro-life individuals also support various ways of helping struggling parents and their children.

The whole "after that, who cares!" part seems to be more propaganda than an actual belief.

Culture of Life, The Gallant Old Republic, New Kiwis, Os Adoradores de Deus, and 2 othersNew west south north east, and Democratic republic of dixie

Os Adoradores de Deus wrote:I just wish that conservatives would fight this hard to preserve life after birth. In most cases I feel like we say “protect the unborn! (But after that, who cares!)” and I don’t like that

That definitely exists in conservative and Republican circles. But it's not as if no one has or continues to advocate for dignified treatment of all human beings. This story came to mind:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-abortion-democrat-tries-trolling-pro-lifers-by-requiring-dads-to-provide-for-moms-unborn-babies/

http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB3129&Session=2200&Tab=0

This guy proposed a bill that would require the father of an unborn child to pay up to 50% of the mother's pregnancy expenses. His reasoning was essentially, "If a woman is forced to carry an unwanted child, the father should also be forced to pay for it."

https://www.twitter.com/ForrestBennett/status/1484643409130397702

After the bill received enthusiastic support from pro-life organizations and criticism from abortion advocates, he issued a lengthy public apology and said he wouldn't be moving forward with the bill "as written". Since then, it has gone no further, and he has proposed no replacement. I guess there is no point in passing a bill to help vulnerable women if you can't use it to affirm your own beliefs. With Republican support, this bill might actually pass and empower more women to keep their babies. That would deal a blow to the abortion industry and anger your donors. Much better to just sweep it under the rug and assure everyone that you still support "abortion access" and that you've realized what a bad idea this bill was.

https://www.okhouse.gov/Members/District.aspx?District=92

https://www.twitter.com/ForrestBennett/status/1484950972480823304

Os Adoradores de Deus

More to the point, here's an article that you might like to read:
https://secularprolife.org/2022/06/responding-to-16-pro-choice-claims-about-dobbs-the-pro-life-movement-and-abortion-bans/

Culture of Life, New Kiwis, Os Adoradores de Deus, and Democratic republic of dixie

«12. . .2,3442,3452,3462,3472,3482,3492,350. . .2,5072,508»

Advertisement