How to win

[Halbhh]

You mean the Christians who are Democrats right? Because I can't find a secular Democrat who adheres to this. There was one on an abortion thread a few months ago, but I would find that to be rare.

I suggest go find a couple of neighbors that are democrats (and remember of course "love your neighbor as yourself" ;-), and ask them. Be sure to make it a clear question: when the mother and baby are completely healthy, and there is no risk at all to the mother of carrying the baby to term, then is a 3rd trimester abortion for just convenience ok with you?

I doubt many people could look me in the eye and say "yes". I just doubt it.

 

[Speedwell]

You don't even have to be Christian to recognize the fact that killing the unborn is killing a human being. So much for the left's stance on human rights, huh?

So you are beginning to see my point? It's telling that the only responses to my idea so far are from conservatives who don't want the issue to go away.

 

[redleghunter]

Maybe. But the political power of the Christian right will still not be broken.

Independents in purple states decide Presidential elections. Take an extreme view one way or the other, Independents usually go the other way.

 

[Speedwell]

I suggest go find a couple of neighbors that are democrats (and remember of course "love your neighbor as yourself" ;-), and ask them. Be sure to make it a clear question: when the mother and baby are completely healthy, and there is no risk at all to the mother of carrying the baby to term, then is a 3rd trimester abortion for just convenience ok with you?

I doubt many people could look me in the eye and say "yes". I just doubt it.

Of course. And in real life it rarely (if ever) happens anyway.

 

[Halbhh]

According to the above we should not have 25 of 25 POTUS candidates from the Democratic Party supporting the extreme view. Yet they all do. What does that tell you of the demographics of the party in general?

It tells us that debate moderators are willing to ask questions that have a lot less sense, less common sense, than average Americans would ask, which reflects terribly on the debate moderators when such questions happen.

 

[civilwarbuff]

So you are beginning to see my point? It's telling that the only responses to my idea so far are from conservatives who don't want the issue to go away.

Actually, the D's running in the primary don't want it to go away; they are believers in abortions culture of death. If they weren't they would repudiate it. Have they?

 

[Sparagmos]

Maybe. But the political power of the Christian right will still not be broken.

Flipping Florida is the plan. Trump didn’t win the popular vote.

 

[redleghunter]

Right. It is to a large extent a fake debate. Democrats should withdraw from it unilaterally.

Ok, for a Democrat to get my vote they would have to address the following:

Premise #1: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
Premise #2: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I suggest go find a couple of neighbors that are democrats (and remember of course "love your neighbor as yourself" ;-), and ask them. Be sure to make it a clear question: when the mother and baby are completely healthy, and there is no risk at all to the mother of carrying the baby to term, then is a 3rd trimester abortion for just convenience ok with you?

I doubt many people could look me in the eye and say "yes". I just doubt it.

And how many people when confronted face to face have no problem that they are OK with killing unborn human beings? Of course it is never put that way even though that is an accurate description. They are always asked about a woman's right to choose.....or women's healthcare. I ask anyone here what healthcare has to do with killing an unborn human being? If you want to ask the question at least be honest about what an abortion truly is......

 

[Halbhh]

Of course. And in real life it rarely (if ever) happens anyway.

Yes, and often a Democrat answers the question in a way that indirectly assumes this, or sometimes even addresses it, but hardly ever well enough, during the primaries it seems. They are inviting Republican propagandists to intentionally paint a falsehood onto them if they don't give a clear enough answer, to say precisely what they mean. When they mean the only 3rd trimester abortions that are ok are for very good reasons, to avoid terrible outcomes, they should say that clearly enough to be comprehended by all the independents that would never think it's fine to abort a late term baby where everything is going normally. Basically, a candidate that has a clear position needs to challenge the moderator of the debate, if the moderator asks a question that has no distinctions in it, in some effective way, like --- "That's not the situation we are talking about."

 

[redleghunter]

I suggest go find a couple of neighbors that are democrats (and remember of course "love your neighbor as yourself" ;-), and ask them. Be sure to make it a clear question: when the mother and baby are completely healthy, and there is no risk at all to the mother of carrying the baby to term, then is a 3rd trimester abortion for just convenience ok with you?

I doubt many people could look me in the eye and say "yes". I just doubt it.

I've done this quite often. The answer I get is "It's the woman's choice." Or "government should not be telling women what to do with their bodies." Perhaps you may want to present this to your Democrat friends:

Premise #1: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
Premise #2: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.​

 

[redleghunter]

It tells us that debate moderators are willing to ask questions that have a lot less sense, less common sense, than average Americans would ask, which reflects terribly on the debate moderators when such questions happen.

That's because the vast majority of the media see the abortion debate as 'over.' Meaning as Gilibrand stated in an interview that the Pro-Life view is no longer up for debate and she compared it to people who were racists.

 

[redleghunter]

Flipping Florida is the plan. Trump didn’t win the popular vote.

He won Florida.

 

[redleghunter]

And how many people when confronted face to face have no problem that they are OK with killing unborn human beings? Of course it is never put that way even though that is an accurate description.

Indeed:

Premise #1: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
Premise #2: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I've done this quite often. The answer I get is "It's the woman's choice." Or "government should not be telling women what to do with their bodies." Perhaps you may want to present this to your Democrat friends:

Premise #1: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
Premise #2: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.​

But instead they use the words "fetus" or "embryo"....words that the average person does not really understand the definition of.......

 

[civilwarbuff]

That's because the vast majority of the media see the abortion debate as 'over.' Meaning as Gilibrand stated in an interview that the Pro-Life view is no longer up for debate and she compared it to people who were racists.

Guess I been a racist all these years and never knew it.....thanks to Gillibrand for enlightening me.

 

[redleghunter]

When they mean the only 3rd trimester abortions that are ok are for very good reasons, to avoid terrible outcomes, they should say that clearly enough to be comprehended by all the independents that would never think it's fine to abort a late term baby where everything is going normally.

What makes 2nd term abortions any better?

Premise #1: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
Premise #2: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

 

[redleghunter]

But instead they use the words "fetus" or "embryo"....words that the average person does not really understand the definition of.......

Those are correct medical terms. But often the "human" part of the term is left out. We have all been a human embryo and a human fetus. Leaving out the 'human' is usually an attempt to dehumanize the human being developing in the womb.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Yes, and often a Democrat answers the question in a way that indirectly assumes this, or sometimes even addresses it, but hardly ever well enough, during the primaries it seems. They are inviting Republican propagandists to intentionally paint a falsehood onto them if they don't give a clear enough answer, to say precisely what they mean. When they mean the only 3rd trimester abortions that are ok are for very good reasons, to avoid terrible outcomes, they should say that clearly enough to be comprehended by all the independents that would never think it's fine to abort a late term baby where everything is going normally. Basically, a candidate that has a clear position needs to challenge the moderator of the debate, if the moderator asks a question that has no distinctions in it, in some effective way, like --- "That's not the situation we are talking about."

So, are you suggesting that 1st and 2nd trimester abortions are somehow more acceptable because of......? What? That killing a 15 week old human being is not as bad as killing a 30 week old human being? That a 32 week old human being gets a pass but not an 8 week old human being? You do see the operative word here, right?......Human being?

 

[Halbhh]

And how many people when confronted face to face have no problem that they are OK with killing unborn human beings? Of course it is never put that way even though that is an accurate description. They are always asked about a woman's right to choose.....or women's healthcare. I ask anyone here what healthcare has to do with killing an unborn human being? If you want to ask the question at least be honest about what an abortion truly is......

"They are always asked about a woman's right to choose.....or women's healthcare."

Good point. The vague question seems as if it's about the Handmaiden's Tale practically -- should a woman have any control of her own body at all.

There's a certain amount of fear of the unknown other involved.

The "woman's right to choose" phrase usually invokes a fear of some kind of militant ideologues that would try to impose something like an end to birth control, for example. It's a fear situation.

 

[redleghunter]

Guess I been a racist all these years and never knew it.....thanks to Gillibrand for enlightening me.

Here is one of the articles covering her comments:

Kirsten Gillibrand & Abortion: Democrat Says Being Pro-Life Is Like Being Racist | National Review