In 31 states if you were to murder a pregnant women you are charged with 2 murders. This applies even in California. So if the State qualifies the baby as a sentient human being, how can another State not? It either is or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.
Next, in Ohio this isn't just about "the right to choose," (a misnomer at its point, because the baby doesn't get that choice) this is about murder up to the moment of birth. So please, justify the concept of within a minute of being plucked from the womb it's not okay to murder as opposed to the moment before it's A-OKAY!!!
Lastly, I find it hard to believe that this issue outweighed others like high prices, high crime, rampant homelessness, open borders, and the real threat of nuclear war. All of which threatens and affects all of us, as opposed to a much smaller segment of the population. Because, folks, we're STILL voting on CORRUPTED machines, in a very corrupt system.
Which leads to this. WE ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE OUT WAY OUT OF A TYRANNY. No Nation ever has. And we're unlikely to be the first.
While I share much of your view, I believe the pro-life side will win over nobody by accusing them of murder. Instead, if we understand that the motivation for yesterday's Ohio vote, for example, is a passive choice on the voter's part, then we can make a distinction between the hardcore abortionists and those that I wrote about in the piece. The gains will happen in the "middle" - and while I agree with your assessment of what abortion is, I cannot go so far as to call a voter a murderer for how they voted yesterday. I want to convince them, not convict them.
Parse it out anyway you wish. It's still the taking of an innocent life.
Understanding that you're trying to gain votes. And that's you prerogative. I on the other hand am not interested in nuancing the tearing apart of an infant.
You either understand that it's murder or you are complicit in it.
If you as an innocent bystander witnessed a murder, even of someone that arguably deserves to die, and turned a blind-eye, wouldn't you be just as guilty as the murderer, no matter how good it made you feel, or justified in your mind it may have been? If this is just about messaging, then message that.
That, or find a way to convince people that they can't have it both ways just to appease the murderers.
I am hoping that the pro-life movement does indeed "convince people that they can't have it both ways." Yes. To do that, we need to understand how they are thinking, about what motivates their vote on this issue. I'm not accommodating abortion; I'm asking why so many others are accommodating abortion. When we understand them better, we might be able to convince them to a different outcome.
Good commentary. For those people in the middle ground, maybe the sign should read, "Your Baby, Your Choice". They seem to recognize a fetus as not just a clump of cells, but a body to be that is not given a choice.
Point; there is no "middle ground." It's murder.
In 31 states if you were to murder a pregnant women you are charged with 2 murders. This applies even in California. So if the State qualifies the baby as a sentient human being, how can another State not? It either is or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.
Next, in Ohio this isn't just about "the right to choose," (a misnomer at its point, because the baby doesn't get that choice) this is about murder up to the moment of birth. So please, justify the concept of within a minute of being plucked from the womb it's not okay to murder as opposed to the moment before it's A-OKAY!!!
Lastly, I find it hard to believe that this issue outweighed others like high prices, high crime, rampant homelessness, open borders, and the real threat of nuclear war. All of which threatens and affects all of us, as opposed to a much smaller segment of the population. Because, folks, we're STILL voting on CORRUPTED machines, in a very corrupt system.
Which leads to this. WE ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE OUT WAY OUT OF A TYRANNY. No Nation ever has. And we're unlikely to be the first.
While I share much of your view, I believe the pro-life side will win over nobody by accusing them of murder. Instead, if we understand that the motivation for yesterday's Ohio vote, for example, is a passive choice on the voter's part, then we can make a distinction between the hardcore abortionists and those that I wrote about in the piece. The gains will happen in the "middle" - and while I agree with your assessment of what abortion is, I cannot go so far as to call a voter a murderer for how they voted yesterday. I want to convince them, not convict them.
Parse it out anyway you wish. It's still the taking of an innocent life.
Understanding that you're trying to gain votes. And that's you prerogative. I on the other hand am not interested in nuancing the tearing apart of an infant.
You either understand that it's murder or you are complicit in it.
If you as an innocent bystander witnessed a murder, even of someone that arguably deserves to die, and turned a blind-eye, wouldn't you be just as guilty as the murderer, no matter how good it made you feel, or justified in your mind it may have been? If this is just about messaging, then message that.
That, or find a way to convince people that they can't have it both ways just to appease the murderers.
I am hoping that the pro-life movement does indeed "convince people that they can't have it both ways." Yes. To do that, we need to understand how they are thinking, about what motivates their vote on this issue. I'm not accommodating abortion; I'm asking why so many others are accommodating abortion. When we understand them better, we might be able to convince them to a different outcome.
Excellent commentary and story BEC. Thank you so much. I have a good friend who campaigned tirelessly in Ohio with her children.
Good commentary. For those people in the middle ground, maybe the sign should read, "Your Baby, Your Choice". They seem to recognize a fetus as not just a clump of cells, but a body to be that is not given a choice.