Kansas- more liberal abortion laws than New York

[SkinnyBenny]

I don't know that aligning with popular opinion is a compelling reason to change your thoughts on an issue.  I doubt _33, who readily admits his opinion on this board, is pro-life because he thought it was popular.

Sure, I get that -- even though I think the word I used was recalibrate, not change. Slight difference. But there's this series of signs hanging in various spots around New Orleans that encourages self-reflection and intellectual humility that just say, "Think that you might be wrong." The 8/2 ass-beating that no one saw coming should probably at minimum cause some self-reflection in just about everyone on the pro-life side. I've seen a few quotes from some Republican strategists today that show a level of acknowledgement and humility, but of course they don't want their names published. Nearly all of the yes voters I've seen today on social media -- and I've been VERY online all day -- show little to no recognition that their viewpoints were proven last night to be extreme.

[SkinnyBenny]

I would be interesting to hear an honest answer from the Yes crowd regarding the obvious attempt to mislead the public.  It might have all been this one group, but I doubt it.
 - Amendment written in such a way that either it was intentionally misleading or written by idiots and incompetents
I don't really think the ballot was very confusing.  A lot of people think so apparently, so who knows.  It reads pretty straightforward to me.  Saying that people in the Kansas legislature are idiotic wouldn't get much of a protest from me though.

Dlew, you're a lawyer if I recall correctly, right? That's why it wasn't confusing to you. Almost none of the people voting have regular practice decoding convoluted run-on sentences meant to obfuscate and bury true meaning. Just as a fun and cool refresher, here's the text that appeared on the ballot:

Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion. To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother.”

I promise you that is not straightforward for 98% of voters, which is why I could find 200 articles written in the last 24 hours that mention the convoluted wording that, yes, was clearly done on purpose to confuse and intimidate. Also, the fact that a yes vote actually negated something (constitutional protection) and a no vote affirmed something (the 2019 decision) added an extra layer of confusion. The people who brought this bill knew what they were doing. They just didn't know their underhandedness would backfire so spectacularly.

[SkinnyBenny]

A little bit more on the Value Them Both (lol) underhandedness...

The only statement I've seen from them is the one they released last night after they had their entire dignity squashed with an electoral 35-7. The statement was pathetic, shameful, and of course offered zero self-reflection and only blame. It was pathetic and shameful. Just absolute Trump-style projection where they accused the other side of exactly what they'd been doing the entire time. Also it was just so predictably angry right wing loser bingo card'y. Radical left organizations! Millions of out-of-state dollars! Mainstream media! Abortion destination state! (Would honestly love it if this happened.)


https://twitter.com/ValueThemBoth/status/1554675474051244033

--"an onslaught of misinformation", like...texts the night before saying the exact opposite of what was actually true?

https://twitter.com/ValueThemBoth/status/1554675475552911361

https://twitter.com/ValueThemBoth/status/1554675476471463941

https://twitter.com/ValueThemBoth/status/1554675477578743808

https://twitter.com/ValueThemBoth/status/1554675478405025792

[mocat]

shameful but not surprising

[Rage Against the McKee]

I think it's a safe bet that we do become an abortion destination and that several new clinics open as a result. We are the closest free state to a whole lot of other states to our south and east.

[DQ12]

I don't know that aligning with popular opinion is a compelling reason to change your thoughts on an issue.  I doubt _33, who readily admits his opinion on this board, is pro-life because he thought it was popular.

Sure, I get that -- even though I think the word I used was recalibrate, not change. Slight difference. But there's this series of signs hanging in various spots around New Orleans that encourages self-reflection and intellectual humility that just say, "Think that you might be wrong." The 8/2 ass-beating that no one saw coming should probably at minimum cause some self-reflection in just about everyone on the pro-life side. I've seen a few quotes from some Republican strategists today that show a level of acknowledgement and humility, but of course they don't want their names published. Nearly all of the yes voters I've seen today on social media -- and I've been VERY online all day -- show little to no recognition that their viewpoints were proven last night to be extreme.

I think “proven to be extreme” stretches the significance of the vote.  “Proven to be in the minority” is probably more accurate. 

All that to say, the vote didn’t do anything to challenge my viewpoint on the actual, substantive issue.  I’ve thought about the abortion question plenty already, and that a majority of Kansans disagree with me seems arbitrary to the conclusion I’ve reached.

To the extent the vote caused me to “recalibrate” anything, it reaffirmed what I already knew: the pro life movement can’t continue in this shortcut, piecemeal, death by a thousand cuts, strategy it’s engaged in in the past if it ever wants the near-total ban.  The people have spoken, and they want abortion rights. 

Any efforts to curtail those rights beyond what we already have is just going to cause more resentment and galvanize pro-choice voters, and lose “hearts and minds.”  I’ve heard people suggest that the next step should be to strategize to get pro-life Supreme Court justices in Kansas, but I don’t think that’s a worthwhile long term play either.  At the end of the day, if enough of the electorate want something, it’s going to happen.

In my opinion, pro life people need to strip things back down to the studs and do the work of actually convincing the electorate that their position is right.  I’m not sure how that’s done, but I really think educating people on the issue would go a long way.  The rhetoric (on both sides) is so perfunctory, and the pro choice rhetoric (eg, “clump of cells”) is, apparently, far more compelling. Whether the rhetoric shift/education works or doesn’t, I think that’s the cold hard truth for the pro life’rs: we are losing the hearts and minds battle.

Pro-choice is perceived as the sophisticated, intelligent side, and with that perception, you lose urban and suburban (and more and more rural) votes. That’ perception has existed for some time, and in the past, wasn’t devastating to Kansas pro lifers because you could get the necessary votes while still losing Kansas’s urban/suburban counties (so long as you don’t get 35-7’d and dominate in rural counties).  That’s obviously not the current status after Tuesday.

All that to say, any progress requires convincing people - any other strategy (shoving through legislation; favorable judges, etc.) is counterproductive. 

[Rage Against the McKee]

Federal single-payer healthcare would do a whole lot more to reduce the number of abortions than criminalizing it for poor people in Kansas and the south.

[KCFDcat]

I don't know that aligning with popular opinion is a compelling reason to change your thoughts on an issue.  I doubt _33, who readily admits his opinion on this board, is pro-life because he thought it was popular.

Sure, I get that -- even though I think the word I used was recalibrate, not change. Slight difference. But there's this series of signs hanging in various spots around New Orleans that encourages self-reflection and intellectual humility that just say, "Think that you might be wrong." The 8/2 ass-beating that no one saw coming should probably at minimum cause some self-reflection in just about everyone on the pro-life side. I've seen a few quotes from some Republican strategists today that show a level of acknowledgement and humility, but of course they don't want their names published. Nearly all of the yes voters I've seen today on social media -- and I've been VERY online all day -- show little to no recognition that their viewpoints were proven last night to be extreme.

I think %u201Cproven to be extreme%u201D stretches the significance of the vote.  %u201CProven to be in the minority%u201D is probably more accurate. 

All that to say, the vote didn%u2019t do anything to challenge my viewpoint on the actual, substantive issue.  I%u2019ve thought about the abortion question plenty already, and that a majority of Kansans disagree with me seems arbitrary to the conclusion I%u2019ve reached.

To the extent the vote caused me to %u201Crecalibrate%u201D anything, it reaffirmed what I already knew: the pro life movement can%u2019t continue in this shortcut, piecemeal, death by a thousand cuts, strategy it%u2019s engaged in in the past if it ever wants the near-total ban.  The people have spoken, and they want abortion rights. 

Any efforts to curtail those rights beyond what we already have is just going to cause more resentment and galvanize pro-choice voters, and lose %u201Chearts and minds.%u201D  I%u2019ve heard people suggest that the next step should be to strategize to get pro-life Supreme Court justices in Kansas, but I don%u2019t think that%u2019s a worthwhile long term play either.  At the end of the day, if enough of the electorate want something, it%u2019s going to happen.

In my opinion, pro life people need to strip things back down to the studs and do the work of actually convincing the electorate that their position is right.  I%u2019m not sure how that%u2019s done, but I really think educating people on the issue would go a long way.  The rhetoric (on both sides) is so perfunctory, and the pro choice rhetoric (eg, %u201Cclump of cells%u201D) is, apparently, far more compelling. Whether the rhetoric shift/education works or doesn%u2019t, I think that%u2019s the cold hard truth for the pro life%u2019rs: we are losing the hearts and minds battle.

Pro-choice is perceived as the sophisticated, intelligent side, and with that perception, you lose urban and suburban (and more and more rural) votes. That%u2019 perception has existed for some time, and in the past, wasn%u2019t devastating to Kansas pro lifers because you could get the necessary votes while still losing Kansas%u2019s urban/suburban counties (so long as you don%u2019t get 35-7%u2019d and dominate in rural counties).  That%u2019s obviously not the current status after Tuesday.

All that to say, any progress requires convincing people - any other strategy (shoving through legislation; favorable judges, etc.) is counterproductive.

I don't think I've ever posted anything in the pit, I try to stay away from this stuff on here. However, in my personal life I'm very involved with politics.

I grew up very Catholic, with very pro life very Catholic parents. I was "pro-life" until I was in my early 20s or so. If pro-lifers had any sense whatsoever, or actually wanted less abortions as opposed to making a whole bunch of noise, they would pour every single resource they have into gaining cheaper/free healthcare for expectant and new mothers, cover the cost of births for those who need it, cover childcare for at least 2 years, cover the cost of child healthcare until 5 or 6. All of these things would lower abortion rates more drastically than restrictions on abortions. They need to be putting their cash and political resources into these areas, then they could claim to be truly pro life, as they'd be supporting not just banning abortion but actually supporting the life of the mother and child.

Until those things are put in place I don't want to hear another word about banning abortion.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Just look at how drastically the abortion rate dropped after Obamacare passed. Maybe people are more likely to go through with a pregnancy when it won't bankrupt them.

[cfbandyman]

I don't know that aligning with popular opinion is a compelling reason to change your thoughts on an issue.  I doubt _33, who readily admits his opinion on this board, is pro-life because he thought it was popular.

Sure, I get that -- even though I think the word I used was recalibrate, not change. Slight difference. But there's this series of signs hanging in various spots around New Orleans that encourages self-reflection and intellectual humility that just say, "Think that you might be wrong." The 8/2 ass-beating that no one saw coming should probably at minimum cause some self-reflection in just about everyone on the pro-life side. I've seen a few quotes from some Republican strategists today that show a level of acknowledgement and humility, but of course they don't want their names published. Nearly all of the yes voters I've seen today on social media -- and I've been VERY online all day -- show little to no recognition that their viewpoints were proven last night to be extreme.

I think %u201Cproven to be extreme%u201D stretches the significance of the vote.  %u201CProven to be in the minority%u201D is probably more accurate. 

All that to say, the vote didn%u2019t do anything to challenge my viewpoint on the actual, substantive issue.  I%u2019ve thought about the abortion question plenty already, and that a majority of Kansans disagree with me seems arbitrary to the conclusion I%u2019ve reached.

To the extent the vote caused me to %u201Crecalibrate%u201D anything, it reaffirmed what I already knew: the pro life movement can%u2019t continue in this shortcut, piecemeal, death by a thousand cuts, strategy it%u2019s engaged in in the past if it ever wants the near-total ban.  The people have spoken, and they want abortion rights. 

Any efforts to curtail those rights beyond what we already have is just going to cause more resentment and galvanize pro-choice voters, and lose %u201Chearts and minds.%u201D  I%u2019ve heard people suggest that the next step should be to strategize to get pro-life Supreme Court justices in Kansas, but I don%u2019t think that%u2019s a worthwhile long term play either.  At the end of the day, if enough of the electorate want something, it%u2019s going to happen.

In my opinion, pro life people need to strip things back down to the studs and do the work of actually convincing the electorate that their position is right.  I%u2019m not sure how that%u2019s done, but I really think educating people on the issue would go a long way.  The rhetoric (on both sides) is so perfunctory, and the pro choice rhetoric (eg, %u201Cclump of cells%u201D) is, apparently, far more compelling. Whether the rhetoric shift/education works or doesn%u2019t, I think that%u2019s the cold hard truth for the pro life%u2019rs: we are losing the hearts and minds battle.

Pro-choice is perceived as the sophisticated, intelligent side, and with that perception, you lose urban and suburban (and more and more rural) votes. That%u2019 perception has existed for some time, and in the past, wasn%u2019t devastating to Kansas pro lifers because you could get the necessary votes while still losing Kansas%u2019s urban/suburban counties (so long as you don%u2019t get 35-7%u2019d and dominate in rural counties).  That%u2019s obviously not the current status after Tuesday.

All that to say, any progress requires convincing people - any other strategy (shoving through legislation; favorable judges, etc.) is counterproductive.

I don't think I've ever posted anything in the pit, I try to stay away from this stuff on here. However, in my personal life I'm very involved with politics.

I grew up very Catholic, with very pro life very Catholic parents. I was "pro-life" until I was in my early 20s or so. If pro-lifers had any sense whatsoever, or actually wanted less abortions as opposed to making a whole bunch of noise, they would pour every single resource they have into gaining cheaper/free healthcare for expectant and new mothers, cover the cost of births for those who need it, cover childcare for at least 2 years, cover the cost of child healthcare until 5 or 6. All of these things would lower abortion rates more drastically than restrictions on abortions. They need to be putting their cash and political resources into these areas, then they could claim to be truly pro life, as they'd be supporting not just banning abortion but actually supporting the life of the mother and child.

Until those things are put in place I don't want to hear another word about banning abortion.

I've been beating that drum for years, and totally agree. If they can PROVE to me they want good things for children after being born, and deliver on it, then you will see things go in the right direction, ie less abortions.

Also DQ, one point I do want to point out you had I totally agree with is this:

All that to say, any progress requires convincing people - any other strategy (shoving through legislation; favorable judges, etc.) is counterproductive.

I think the recent SCOTUS plan on this has shown exactly what eff around and find out means by doing it. I appreciate your candor on recognizing that doing that is a bad, bad idea.

In the end, while from a moral and philosophical point I can more than understand why people are against abortion, the reality always is it's so much more complicated than thinking you're stopping an "innocent baby from being murdered." You're painting the women who carry those babies in a very, very small box with not a lot of options if things go sideways whether that be from a health issue, economic issue, or social issue.

[cfbandyman]

also @SkinnyBenny agree none of that surprises me, the amount of frothing disinformation they spew it's rich to claim elsewise. It was women protecting their interests, plain and simple.

[Rage Against the McKee]

[KCFDcat]

I don't know that aligning with popular opinion is a compelling reason to change your thoughts on an issue.  I doubt _33, who readily admits his opinion on this board, is pro-life because he thought it was popular.

Sure, I get that -- even though I think the word I used was recalibrate, not change. Slight difference. But there's this series of signs hanging in various spots around New Orleans that encourages self-reflection and intellectual humility that just say, "Think that you might be wrong." The 8/2 ass-beating that no one saw coming should probably at minimum cause some self-reflection in just about everyone on the pro-life side. I've seen a few quotes from some Republican strategists today that show a level of acknowledgement and humility, but of course they don't want their names published. Nearly all of the yes voters I've seen today on social media -- and I've been VERY online all day -- show little to no recognition that their viewpoints were proven last night to be extreme.

I think %u201Cproven to be extreme%u201D stretches the significance of the vote.  %u201CProven to be in the minority%u201D is probably more accurate. 

All that to say, the vote didn%u2019t do anything to challenge my viewpoint on the actual, substantive issue.  I%u2019ve thought about the abortion question plenty already, and that a majority of Kansans disagree with me seems arbitrary to the conclusion I%u2019ve reached.

To the extent the vote caused me to %u201Crecalibrate%u201D anything, it reaffirmed what I already knew: the pro life movement can%u2019t continue in this shortcut, piecemeal, death by a thousand cuts, strategy it%u2019s engaged in in the past if it ever wants the near-total ban.  The people have spoken, and they want abortion rights. 

Any efforts to curtail those rights beyond what we already have is just going to cause more resentment and galvanize pro-choice voters, and lose %u201Chearts and minds.%u201D  I%u2019ve heard people suggest that the next step should be to strategize to get pro-life Supreme Court justices in Kansas, but I don%u2019t think that%u2019s a worthwhile long term play either.  At the end of the day, if enough of the electorate want something, it%u2019s going to happen.

In my opinion, pro life people need to strip things back down to the studs and do the work of actually convincing the electorate that their position is right.  I%u2019m not sure how that%u2019s done, but I really think educating people on the issue would go a long way.  The rhetoric (on both sides) is so perfunctory, and the pro choice rhetoric (eg, %u201Cclump of cells%u201D) is, apparently, far more compelling. Whether the rhetoric shift/education works or doesn%u2019t, I think that%u2019s the cold hard truth for the pro life%u2019rs: we are losing the hearts and minds battle.

Pro-choice is perceived as the sophisticated, intelligent side, and with that perception, you lose urban and suburban (and more and more rural) votes. That%u2019 perception has existed for some time, and in the past, wasn%u2019t devastating to Kansas pro lifers because you could get the necessary votes while still losing Kansas%u2019s urban/suburban counties (so long as you don%u2019t get 35-7%u2019d and dominate in rural counties).  That%u2019s obviously not the current status after Tuesday.

All that to say, any progress requires convincing people - any other strategy (shoving through legislation; favorable judges, etc.) is counterproductive.

I don't think I've ever posted anything in the pit, I try to stay away from this stuff on here. However, in my personal life I'm very involved with politics.

I grew up very Catholic, with very pro life very Catholic parents. I was "pro-life" until I was in my early 20s or so. If pro-lifers had any sense whatsoever, or actually wanted less abortions as opposed to making a whole bunch of noise, they would pour every single resource they have into gaining cheaper/free healthcare for expectant and new mothers, cover the cost of births for those who need it, cover childcare for at least 2 years, cover the cost of child healthcare until 5 or 6. All of these things would lower abortion rates more drastically than restrictions on abortions. They need to be putting their cash and political resources into these areas, then they could claim to be truly pro life, as they'd be supporting not just banning abortion but actually supporting the life of the mother and child.

Until those things are put in place I don't want to hear another word about banning abortion.

I've been beating that drum for years, and totally agree. If they can PROVE to me they want good things for children after being born, and deliver on it, then you will see things go in the right direction, ie less abortions.

Also DQ, one point I do want to point out you had I totally agree with is this:

All that to say, any progress requires convincing people - any other strategy (shoving through legislation; favorable judges, etc.) is counterproductive.

I think the recent SCOTUS plan on this has shown exactly what eff around and find out means by doing it. I appreciate your candor on recognizing that doing that is a bad, bad idea.

In the end, while from a moral and philosophical point I can more than understand why people are against abortion, the reality always is it's so much more complicated than thinking you're stopping an "innocent baby from being murdered." You're painting the women who carry those babies in a very, very small box with not a lot of options if things go sideways whether that be from a health issue, economic issue, or social issue.

Yeah, in no way am I saying pro-life people are bad people (some are, but that's true with any group) I'd go so far as to say most most pro-choice people aren't in love with the idea of an abortion. Very very few people are excited to get an abortion, but that's the choice this country has given them: go bankrupt or abort this baby. Who am, or the government, to force someone into bankruptcy. After having 2 kids of my own this has become even more clear to me. Kids are hard and expensive. If you don't have a support system in place I truly can't imagine how hard it would be.

[DQ12]

Also DQ, one point I do want to point out you had I totally agree with is this:

All that to say, any progress requires convincing people - any other strategy (shoving through legislation; favorable judges, etc.) is counterproductive.

I think the recent SCOTUS plan on this has shown exactly what eff around and find out means by doing it. I appreciate your candor on recognizing that doing that is a bad, bad idea.

In the end, while from a moral and philosophical point I can more than understand why people are against abortion, the reality always is it's so much more complicated than thinking you're stopping an "innocent baby from being murdered." You're painting the women who carry those babies in a very, very small box with not a lot of options if things go sideways whether that be from a health issue, economic issue, or social issue.

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that Dobbs was bad for the pro-life cause.  It was obviously huge, and one I wouldn't trade despite the resentment it caused among the voting populace.  I do think the timing of Dobbs was bad for the VTB effort.

I was talking about the Kansas Supreme Court, which found an abortion/right to privacy in the Kansas constitution (basically a state version of Roe). 

[OK_Cat]

How about they stop calling themselves ‘pro-life?’

Everybody is pro-life. Using that term is pretty douchy. I 100% check-out IRL if someone says they are pro-life, it comes off as very ‘I’m better than you.’ That would be a good start for hearts and minds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DQ12]

How about they stop calling themselves ‘pro-life?’

Everybody is pro-life. Using that term is pretty douchy. I 100% check-out IRL if someone says they are pro-life, it comes off as very ‘I’m better than you.’ That would be a good start for hearts and minds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I mean, it's shorthand.  Everyone is for "choice" too. 

If we want to reframe things to "pro-abortion rights" vs. "anti-abortion rights" (which is a longer way of saying the same things) that's fine with me, but it's semantics.

[ChiComCat]

I don't know that aligning with popular opinion is a compelling reason to change your thoughts on an issue.  I doubt _33, who readily admits his opinion on this board, is pro-life because he thought it was popular.

Sure, I get that -- even though I think the word I used was recalibrate, not change. Slight difference. But there's this series of signs hanging in various spots around New Orleans that encourages self-reflection and intellectual humility that just say, "Think that you might be wrong." The 8/2 ass-beating that no one saw coming should probably at minimum cause some self-reflection in just about everyone on the pro-life side. I've seen a few quotes from some Republican strategists today that show a level of acknowledgement and humility, but of course they don't want their names published. Nearly all of the yes voters I've seen today on social media -- and I've been VERY online all day -- show little to no recognition that their viewpoints were proven last night to be extreme.

I think “proven to be extreme” stretches the significance of the vote.  “Proven to be in the minority” is probably more accurate. 

All that to say, the vote didn’t do anything to challenge my viewpoint on the actual, substantive issue.  I’ve thought about the abortion question plenty already, and that a majority of Kansans disagree with me seems arbitrary to the conclusion I’ve reached.

To the extent the vote caused me to “recalibrate” anything, it reaffirmed what I already knew: the pro life movement can’t continue in this shortcut, piecemeal, death by a thousand cuts, strategy it’s engaged in in the past if it ever wants the near-total ban.  The people have spoken, and they want abortion rights. 

Any efforts to curtail those rights beyond what we already have is just going to cause more resentment and galvanize pro-choice voters, and lose “hearts and minds.”  I’ve heard people suggest that the next step should be to strategize to get pro-life Supreme Court justices in Kansas, but I don’t think that’s a worthwhile long term play either.  At the end of the day, if enough of the electorate want something, it’s going to happen.

In my opinion, pro life people need to strip things back down to the studs and do the work of actually convincing the electorate that their position is right.  I’m not sure how that’s done, but I really think educating people on the issue would go a long way.  The rhetoric (on both sides) is so perfunctory, and the pro choice rhetoric (eg, “clump of cells”) is, apparently, far more compelling. Whether the rhetoric shift/education works or doesn’t, I think that’s the cold hard truth for the pro life’rs: we are losing the hearts and minds battle.

Pro-choice is perceived as the sophisticated, intelligent side, and with that perception, you lose urban and suburban (and more and more rural) votes. That’ perception has existed for some time, and in the past, wasn’t devastating to Kansas pro lifers because you could get the necessary votes while still losing Kansas’s urban/suburban counties (so long as you don’t get 35-7’d and dominate in rural counties).  That’s obviously not the current status after Tuesday.

All that to say, any progress requires convincing people - any other strategy (shoving through legislation; favorable judges, etc.) is counterproductive. 

I think part of the problem of the pro-life argument is that, if you truly accept the arguments that fetuses are babies and abortion is murder, there can't be exceptions.  That argument has to end with a total ban because it's banning murder.  There's no real space for exceptions or compromise with the other side when you view (or purposefully depict) them as baby murderers.

IMO, pro-lifers would be a lot better off improving access to birth control and sex education to prevent abortions like Colorado did.  When they are unwilling to take steps that have been proven effective to prevent abortion, I see the goal as not preventing baby murder but as forcing people to live by their religious dogma. 

[DQ12]

I think part of the problem of the pro-life argument is that, if you truly accept the arguments that fetuses are babies and abortion is murder, there can't be exceptions.  That argument has to end with a total ban because it's banning murder.  There's no real space for exceptions or compromise with the other side when you view (or purposefully depict) them as baby murderers.

IMO, pro-lifers would be a lot better off improving access to birth control and sex education to prevent abortions like Colorado did.  When they are unwilling to take steps that have been proven effective to prevent abortion, I see the goal as not preventing baby murder but as forcing people to live by their religious dogma.

This is wrong.  Even if your framework is "1. It is generally wrong to kill innocents," there can be rational exceptions -- at least in the case of serious health threat to the mother (which is universally excepted in every "near-total" ban i've seen).  I also think there are some fairly compelling arguments in the case of rape (recently i heard some heady lack-of-duty-based argument akin to the violinist thought experiment), but they haven't convinced me.

I agree that accessible birth control should be favored.  Also agree that systems should be in place to help with expenses. 

[ChiComCat]

I think part of the problem of the pro-life argument is that, if you truly accept the arguments that fetuses are babies and abortion is murder, there can't be exceptions.  That argument has to end with a total ban because it's banning murder.  There's no real space for exceptions or compromise with the other side when you view (or purposefully depict) them as baby murderers.

IMO, pro-lifers would be a lot better off improving access to birth control and sex education to prevent abortions like Colorado did.  When they are unwilling to take steps that have been proven effective to prevent abortion, I see the goal as not preventing baby murder but as forcing people to live by their religious dogma.

This is wrong.  There can be rational exceptions -- at least in the case of serious health threat to the mother (which is universally excepted in every "near-total" ban i've seen).  I also think there are some fairly compelling arguments in the case of rape (recently i heard some heady lack-of-duty-based argument akin to the violinist thought experiment), but they haven't convinced me.

I agree that accessible birth control should be favored.  Also agree that systems should be in place to help with expenses. 

That's fair for life of the mother - but the process of making an exception for the life of the mother has sounded horrendous and unreasonable in a lot of states that have bans.  They don't seem to want to trust the mother or doctor to make this decision.  Any other exception just strikes me as the best the pro-life crowd can do at the moment, but they're itching to reel those back as well.

[DQ12]

I think part of the problem of the pro-life argument is that, if you truly accept the arguments that fetuses are babies and abortion is murder, there can't be exceptions.  That argument has to end with a total ban because it's banning murder.  There's no real space for exceptions or compromise with the other side when you view (or purposefully depict) them as baby murderers.

IMO, pro-lifers would be a lot better off improving access to birth control and sex education to prevent abortions like Colorado did.  When they are unwilling to take steps that have been proven effective to prevent abortion, I see the goal as not preventing baby murder but as forcing people to live by their religious dogma.

This is wrong.  There can be rational exceptions -- at least in the case of serious health threat to the mother (which is universally excepted in every "near-total" ban i've seen).  I also think there are some fairly compelling arguments in the case of rape (recently i heard some heady lack-of-duty-based argument akin to the violinist thought experiment), but they haven't convinced me.

I agree that accessible birth control should be favored.  Also agree that systems should be in place to help with expenses. 

That's fair for life of the mother - but the process of making an exception for the life of the mother has sounded horrendous and unresonable in a lot of states that have bans. 

It seems fairly plain to me.  All that would be required is for the doctor performing the procedure to provide a legitimate health-basis for the procedure (e.g. "ectopic pregnancy").  Which doctors do pretty routinely for all sorts of things.

[Dr Rick Daris]

The problem with saying we should spend money on birth control and all that stuff is that a lot of Americans are only in it for themselves and not for the good of the people or community or America as a whole. I’d be willing to bet that the people demanding no abortions highly correlate with the lower my taxes and stop giving people food stamps crowd. Very opinionated while simultaneously not willing to sacrifice a single thing.

[cfbandyman]

I don't know that aligning with popular opinion is a compelling reason to change your thoughts on an issue.  I doubt _33, who readily admits his opinion on this board, is pro-life because he thought it was popular.

Sure, I get that -- even though I think the word I used was recalibrate, not change. Slight difference. But there's this series of signs hanging in various spots around New Orleans that encourages self-reflection and intellectual humility that just say, "Think that you might be wrong." The 8/2 ass-beating that no one saw coming should probably at minimum cause some self-reflection in just about everyone on the pro-life side. I've seen a few quotes from some Republican strategists today that show a level of acknowledgement and humility, but of course they don't want their names published. Nearly all of the yes voters I've seen today on social media -- and I've been VERY online all day -- show little to no recognition that their viewpoints were proven last night to be extreme.

I think %u201Cproven to be extreme%u201D stretches the significance of the vote.  %u201CProven to be in the minority%u201D is probably more accurate. 

All that to say, the vote didn%u2019t do anything to challenge my viewpoint on the actual, substantive issue.  I%u2019ve thought about the abortion question plenty already, and that a majority of Kansans disagree with me seems arbitrary to the conclusion I%u2019ve reached.

To the extent the vote caused me to %u201Crecalibrate%u201D anything, it reaffirmed what I already knew: the pro life movement can%u2019t continue in this shortcut, piecemeal, death by a thousand cuts, strategy it%u2019s engaged in in the past if it ever wants the near-total ban.  The people have spoken, and they want abortion rights. 

Any efforts to curtail those rights beyond what we already have is just going to cause more resentment and galvanize pro-choice voters, and lose %u201Chearts and minds.%u201D  I%u2019ve heard people suggest that the next step should be to strategize to get pro-life Supreme Court justices in Kansas, but I don%u2019t think that%u2019s a worthwhile long term play either.  At the end of the day, if enough of the electorate want something, it%u2019s going to happen.

In my opinion, pro life people need to strip things back down to the studs and do the work of actually convincing the electorate that their position is right.  I%u2019m not sure how that%u2019s done, but I really think educating people on the issue would go a long way.  The rhetoric (on both sides) is so perfunctory, and the pro choice rhetoric (eg, %u201Cclump of cells%u201D) is, apparently, far more compelling. Whether the rhetoric shift/education works or doesn%u2019t, I think that%u2019s the cold hard truth for the pro life%u2019rs: we are losing the hearts and minds battle.

Pro-choice is perceived as the sophisticated, intelligent side, and with that perception, you lose urban and suburban (and more and more rural) votes. That%u2019 perception has existed for some time, and in the past, wasn%u2019t devastating to Kansas pro lifers because you could get the necessary votes while still losing Kansas%u2019s urban/suburban counties (so long as you don%u2019t get 35-7%u2019d and dominate in rural counties).  That%u2019s obviously not the current status after Tuesday.

All that to say, any progress requires convincing people - any other strategy (shoving through legislation; favorable judges, etc.) is counterproductive.

I don't think I've ever posted anything in the pit, I try to stay away from this stuff on here. However, in my personal life I'm very involved with politics.

I grew up very Catholic, with very pro life very Catholic parents. I was "pro-life" until I was in my early 20s or so. If pro-lifers had any sense whatsoever, or actually wanted less abortions as opposed to making a whole bunch of noise, they would pour every single resource they have into gaining cheaper/free healthcare for expectant and new mothers, cover the cost of births for those who need it, cover childcare for at least 2 years, cover the cost of child healthcare until 5 or 6. All of these things would lower abortion rates more drastically than restrictions on abortions. They need to be putting their cash and political resources into these areas, then they could claim to be truly pro life, as they'd be supporting not just banning abortion but actually supporting the life of the mother and child.

Until those things are put in place I don't want to hear another word about banning abortion.

I've been beating that drum for years, and totally agree. If they can PROVE to me they want good things for children after being born, and deliver on it, then you will see things go in the right direction, ie less abortions.

Also DQ, one point I do want to point out you had I totally agree with is this:

All that to say, any progress requires convincing people - any other strategy (shoving through legislation; favorable judges, etc.) is counterproductive.

I think the recent SCOTUS plan on this has shown exactly what eff around and find out means by doing it. I appreciate your candor on recognizing that doing that is a bad, bad idea.

In the end, while from a moral and philosophical point I can more than understand why people are against abortion, the reality always is it's so much more complicated than thinking you're stopping an "innocent baby from being murdered." You're painting the women who carry those babies in a very, very small box with not a lot of options if things go sideways whether that be from a health issue, economic issue, or social issue.

Yeah, in no way am I saying pro-life people are bad people (some are, but that's true with any group) I'd go so far as to say most most pro-choice people aren't in love with the idea of an abortion. Very very few people are excited to get an abortion, but that's the choice this country has given them: go bankrupt or abort this baby. Who am, or the government, to force someone into bankruptcy. After having 2 kids of my own this has become even more clear to me. Kids are hard and expensive. If you don't have a support system in place I truly can't imagine how hard it would be.

Again, don't want to belabor the point, but i have also beat this drum for a bit, but also totally agree, there are plenty of good meaning people on the "pro-life" side, and I don't think people on the "pro-choice" are jazzed to get an abortion, just want to have the ability to do so.

[DQ12]

The problem with saying we should spend money on birth control and all that stuff is that a lot of Americans are only in it for themselves and not for the good of the people or community or America as a whole. I’d be willing to bet that the people demanding no abortions highly correlate with the lower my taxes and stop giving people food stamps crowd. Very opinionated while simultaneously not willing to sacrifice a single thing.

Agreed.

[Dugout DickStone]

The problem with saying we should spend money on birth control and all that stuff is that a lot of Americans are only in it for themselves and not for the good of the people or community or America as a whole. I’d be willing to bet that the people demanding no abortions highly correlate with the lower my taxes and stop giving people food stamps crowd. Very opinionated while simultaneously not willing to sacrifice a single thing.

who also will take SSI and gov subsidies for their business as they "deserve" it.

I also think this vote was a good example of just how selfish people are.  I would bet some of the pro-lifers who went in and voted "no" were thinking of themselves and their kids.  i.e  that they hate abortion but would absolutely do it if it were them from some illicit relationship or for their horny kids.

[michigancat]

I think part of the problem of the pro-life argument is that, if you truly accept the arguments that fetuses are babies and abortion is murder, there can't be exceptions.  That argument has to end with a total ban because it's banning murder.  There's no real space for exceptions or compromise with the other side when you view (or purposefully depict) them as baby murderers.

IMO, pro-lifers would be a lot better off improving access to birth control and sex education to prevent abortions like Colorado did.  When they are unwilling to take steps that have been proven effective to prevent abortion, I see the goal as not preventing baby murder but as forcing people to live by their religious dogma. 

Also a big problem for me is I don't see how Pro Lifer's haven't been rioting for the last 50 years and/or partying in the streets after Dobbs if they really believe abortion is murder. The reaction we get is the kind of reaction you'd expect if you view an abortion ban as more of "punishment for premarital sex" rather than "stopping murder"