We already have, at long last, a national compromise on abortion: let states decide. States already regulate acts that are similar for either True Believer camp.
For pro-lifers, acts that shock the conscience, like prostitution or physician-assisted suicide, vary in legality from “legal” to “felony punishable by 10+ years in prison.”
For pro-choicers, acts that pit the principle of personal bodily autonomy against community norms, like sexual relations between cousins, vary similarly: “legal” to “felony/10+ years.”
There’s not a compelling argument for why this needs a federal solution. The states are fit to govern themselves.
This is just more 90s liberalism and it always fails. Not only is it at best a “truce”but it leads to the same problems we have with family formation/red pill and leads to mass migration. There can be no compromise between truth and falsehood if society is to continue
To add to my previous comment, I compare abortion with same sex marriage. Roe v. Wade short-circuited the political process, whereas same-sex marriage was worked settled in many states before Obergefell v. Hodges. Thus, same-sex marriage is no longer the perpetual issue that abortion is.
You seem to ignore that Roe vs Wade was decided by the SCOTUS and so was “same sex marriage”! There is no difference here wrt to “short circuiting”. Indeed, in the opinion rendered, SCOTUS said that since so many States had approved same sex marriage that SSM was now the “law of the land”. SCOTUS simply pronounce such as a fundamental right under the 14th Amendment.
Worse, SCOTUS has now, in essence, outlined a plan of attack for future moral decline via law. If enough States approve some future debatchury, then the rest of the States will not be able to hold out against such. So much for States’ Rights.
“If you are a True Believer reading this essay, I am not asking you to trade eventual victory for compromise. I am asking you to trade stalemate for compromise.”
It takes two to compromise, all I’ve heard is one side. You are naive to think otherwise. In this State, a compromise *was* made. This was not good enough for the “other side”. Through thoroughly disgusting lies and public appeals to emotion, a referendum was placed on the ballot and the “post Roe vs Wade” legislative “compromise” then in effect was overturned. We now have abortion on demand with *no* limitation before birth—enshrined within our State Constitution! This means basically a 2/3 majority to repeal or alter as it is in the State Constitution.
Don’t talk about “compromise” to me. There is no compromise with fanatics. They simply must be dealt with. Leftism is a religion. In the church of Divine Narcissism, abortion is their sacrament.
“Viability” reflects the state of medical science at the time. It seems like a more arbitrary dividing line than conception.
(I realize that this is not the majority position in America and anti-abortion ppl—I prefer to describe myself as anti-abortion—need to work harder to communicate clearly and bring about a cultural change rather than just depending on RW legislators who act like the dog who caught the car. It is difficult to take many of them seriously when guys like them are the reason women feel like they have to get abortions.)
We already have, at long last, a national compromise on abortion: let states decide. States already regulate acts that are similar for either True Believer camp.
For pro-lifers, acts that shock the conscience, like prostitution or physician-assisted suicide, vary in legality from “legal” to “felony punishable by 10+ years in prison.”
For pro-choicers, acts that pit the principle of personal bodily autonomy against community norms, like sexual relations between cousins, vary similarly: “legal” to “felony/10+ years.”
There’s not a compelling argument for why this needs a federal solution. The states are fit to govern themselves.
I think this case shows the Pro-Life True Believers went too far in Texas.
I think Congress can make such a law given the current interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zurawski_v._State_of_Texas#Case_history
>looking for a grand compromise on abortion
> ask the Substacker if his compromise is federalism or 90s liberalism
> he doesn't understand
> pull out illustrated diagram explaining what is federalism and what is 90s liberalism
> he laughs and says "it's a good compromise sir"
> read plan
> its bill clinton
This is just more 90s liberalism and it always fails. Not only is it at best a “truce”but it leads to the same problems we have with family formation/red pill and leads to mass migration. There can be no compromise between truth and falsehood if society is to continue
Good idea, but it will never happen. Let the states decide, preferably by referendums.
I feel like this deal gives much more to the pro-choice side than it does to the pro-life side, but I guess it’s difficult to make a good compromise.
You can not compromise with fanatics—and that’s ignoring any aspect of morality in the compromise.
To add to my previous comment, I compare abortion with same sex marriage. Roe v. Wade short-circuited the political process, whereas same-sex marriage was worked settled in many states before Obergefell v. Hodges. Thus, same-sex marriage is no longer the perpetual issue that abortion is.
You seem to ignore that Roe vs Wade was decided by the SCOTUS and so was “same sex marriage”! There is no difference here wrt to “short circuiting”. Indeed, in the opinion rendered, SCOTUS said that since so many States had approved same sex marriage that SSM was now the “law of the land”. SCOTUS simply pronounce such as a fundamental right under the 14th Amendment.
Worse, SCOTUS has now, in essence, outlined a plan of attack for future moral decline via law. If enough States approve some future debatchury, then the rest of the States will not be able to hold out against such. So much for States’ Rights.
“If you are a True Believer reading this essay, I am not asking you to trade eventual victory for compromise. I am asking you to trade stalemate for compromise.”
It takes two to compromise, all I’ve heard is one side. You are naive to think otherwise. In this State, a compromise *was* made. This was not good enough for the “other side”. Through thoroughly disgusting lies and public appeals to emotion, a referendum was placed on the ballot and the “post Roe vs Wade” legislative “compromise” then in effect was overturned. We now have abortion on demand with *no* limitation before birth—enshrined within our State Constitution! This means basically a 2/3 majority to repeal or alter as it is in the State Constitution.
Don’t talk about “compromise” to me. There is no compromise with fanatics. They simply must be dealt with. Leftism is a religion. In the church of Divine Narcissism, abortion is their sacrament.
Abortion is either murder (which should be banned) or it is not (and it should be legal until viability/birth.
This wishy-washy middle either needlessly restricts women's bodily autonomy or sentences millions of children to death.
Awful take.
Or maybe murder shouldn't always be banned.
Respectfully, I hope future guest posts will be better quality than this centrist dad utopianism.
"Why can't we all get along?!” is not a plan.
lol nah. Mushy middle needs to get off the fence
It’s murder or it’s getting a mole removed. No grey area
“Viability” reflects the state of medical science at the time. It seems like a more arbitrary dividing line than conception.
(I realize that this is not the majority position in America and anti-abortion ppl—I prefer to describe myself as anti-abortion—need to work harder to communicate clearly and bring about a cultural change rather than just depending on RW legislators who act like the dog who caught the car. It is difficult to take many of them seriously when guys like them are the reason women feel like they have to get abortions.)