I support expansive abortion access purely as a matter of practical considerations because of how legal prohibitions encourage horrific black market alternatives. I part ways with the pro-choice crowd when they respond to a difficult morality question with flippant dismissal. So at least from that standpoint, I sympathize with the earnest pro-life crowd because they’re helplessly witnessing what is (by their definitions) a massive genocide made worse by the fact that it’s legally-sanctioned.
The abortion issue for the GOP is like the trans issue for Dems: both are being heavily pressured by a small group of very dedicated activists that will never compromise on what they call a genocide.
The problem is much bigger for the GOP because abortion is a far more salient issue than women’s sports or even puberty blockers/surgeries for children. Overturning Roe was the perhaps biggest Phyrric victory ever in American politics.
Aug 9, 2023·edited Aug 9, 2023Liked by Yassine Meskhout
Sort of asymmetrical though, because the abortion question is just about drawing a line about whether and when it’s legal or illegal (think the Veep scene about forcing Selina to just pick a number of weeks) whereas the trans “issue” encompasses a whole host of questions and restrictions on behavior and access to medical treatments.
(Also there’s a lot more evidence that abortion restrictions kill people and very little evidence that giving trans people access to medical care or bathrooms or sporting events kills anyone, but maybe that’s just my bias showing.)
I do agree with Dobbs being a Pyrrhic victory from a political standpoint (as many people predicted it would be), notwithstanding the harm it’s caused people.
Every year or so I tell myself “there’s no way the Republican Party could get any dumber. Just ain’t physically possible. They’re right on the verge of realizing the errors of their ways and getting their act together.” And yet they keep on delivering.
Aug 21, 2023·edited Aug 21, 2023Liked by Yassine Meskhout
I am personally pro-life, and I also think that Ohio's current 50% threshold to change the constitution is too low and that a 60% threshold actually would be better. But even I think that that Ohio Issue 1 vote was bizarre and underhanded and it's a good thing that it lost; it would have been much better if tactics like this had not been attempted in the first place - this is not the way to persuade people.
Note that I value life and my biggest desire in this area is to save lives by providing genuine alternatives for the desperate mothers who seek abortion because they think they have no other choice (in that sense, I am pro-choice) - and I think that private charities are the best way to accomplish this. From a legal perspective, I want to criminalize neither mothers who need help nor doctors who are genuinely (but perhaps misguidedly) attempting to help them. I think there is a case to be made that abortion violates the non-aggression principle and should therefore be penalized, but I also think that there are too many people who do not grapple with the genuine downsides of prohibition. I certainly don't know what the right balance should be (maybe fines paid by abortion providers which could be used to support women's shelters or something?), but it seems like _none_ of the loud voices on either side (and very few of the softer voices anywhere) are calling for anything sane that we could all live with.
I appreciate this comment! I can definitely see some good arguments for raising the threshold to 60% (2015 was a clusterfuck in Ohio, with two marijuana referendums on the ballot that directly contradicted each other). I highly respect that you're willing to fully think through your position on abortion and identify some really thorny issues, I try to do the same. Even though I'm pro-choice, I acknowledge that an abortion necessarily involves the killing of an innocent human being and I don't have a good direct response to that conundrum which doesn't involve glossing over it.
Sometimes you just need to accept that a majority does not agree, and that's ok! The majority is not always right, and that does not reduce your worth as a human being. I am pro-free trade, I did not change my mind because protectionism became popular. I recognize that any pro-free trade argument needs to reassure voters that we're not going to harm domestic employment that the benefits of free trade will lift almost all citizens, and tariffs are actually tax increase.
It's still a hard task, but I'd rather lose honestly than win coercively.
And look, some other opinions may be neither right nor wrong but unpopular. I think weed is really bad for society and our gung-ho attitude towards legalization will have unintended health consequences. Ohio will put legal weed on the ballot, I might vote no (I also may not vote for abortion). That's fine if I lose. The sooner Republicans recognize their positions they can come up with a position that checks off their values but can also pass in public opinion.
Team R doesn't really want to ban abortion, but at the same time, they cannot afford to alienate their evangelical voter bloc. By punting the abortion issue to the electorate, they can wash their hands of the issue and tell evangelicals that they need to vote harder.
At the same time, Team D values the abortion issue as a source of cash and votes. In fact, that probably kept the Senate from going to Team R.
I agree that Team R doesn't *really* want to ban abortion, but do you think the gimmicks described above should count as an example of punting the issue to the electorate? If that was really the aim, they wouldn't have bothered with Issue 1.
The abortion issue for the GOP is like the trans issue for Dems: both are being heavily pressured by a small group of very dedicated activists that will never compromise on what they call a genocide.
The problem is much bigger for the GOP because abortion is a far more salient issue than women’s sports or even puberty blockers/surgeries for children. Overturning Roe was the perhaps biggest Phyrric victory ever in American politics.
Ha! I didn't notice that both movements rely on the "genocide" vocabulary.
Sort of asymmetrical though, because the abortion question is just about drawing a line about whether and when it’s legal or illegal (think the Veep scene about forcing Selina to just pick a number of weeks) whereas the trans “issue” encompasses a whole host of questions and restrictions on behavior and access to medical treatments.
(Also there’s a lot more evidence that abortion restrictions kill people and very little evidence that giving trans people access to medical care or bathrooms or sporting events kills anyone, but maybe that’s just my bias showing.)
I do agree with Dobbs being a Pyrrhic victory from a political standpoint (as many people predicted it would be), notwithstanding the harm it’s caused people.
Every year or so I tell myself “there’s no way the Republican Party could get any dumber. Just ain’t physically possible. They’re right on the verge of realizing the errors of their ways and getting their act together.” And yet they keep on delivering.
It's a conspiracy by Big Popcorn to boost sales
I am personally pro-life, and I also think that Ohio's current 50% threshold to change the constitution is too low and that a 60% threshold actually would be better. But even I think that that Ohio Issue 1 vote was bizarre and underhanded and it's a good thing that it lost; it would have been much better if tactics like this had not been attempted in the first place - this is not the way to persuade people.
Note that I value life and my biggest desire in this area is to save lives by providing genuine alternatives for the desperate mothers who seek abortion because they think they have no other choice (in that sense, I am pro-choice) - and I think that private charities are the best way to accomplish this. From a legal perspective, I want to criminalize neither mothers who need help nor doctors who are genuinely (but perhaps misguidedly) attempting to help them. I think there is a case to be made that abortion violates the non-aggression principle and should therefore be penalized, but I also think that there are too many people who do not grapple with the genuine downsides of prohibition. I certainly don't know what the right balance should be (maybe fines paid by abortion providers which could be used to support women's shelters or something?), but it seems like _none_ of the loud voices on either side (and very few of the softer voices anywhere) are calling for anything sane that we could all live with.
I appreciate this comment! I can definitely see some good arguments for raising the threshold to 60% (2015 was a clusterfuck in Ohio, with two marijuana referendums on the ballot that directly contradicted each other). I highly respect that you're willing to fully think through your position on abortion and identify some really thorny issues, I try to do the same. Even though I'm pro-choice, I acknowledge that an abortion necessarily involves the killing of an innocent human being and I don't have a good direct response to that conundrum which doesn't involve glossing over it.
Sometimes you just need to accept that a majority does not agree, and that's ok! The majority is not always right, and that does not reduce your worth as a human being. I am pro-free trade, I did not change my mind because protectionism became popular. I recognize that any pro-free trade argument needs to reassure voters that we're not going to harm domestic employment that the benefits of free trade will lift almost all citizens, and tariffs are actually tax increase.
It's still a hard task, but I'd rather lose honestly than win coercively.
And look, some other opinions may be neither right nor wrong but unpopular. I think weed is really bad for society and our gung-ho attitude towards legalization will have unintended health consequences. Ohio will put legal weed on the ballot, I might vote no (I also may not vote for abortion). That's fine if I lose. The sooner Republicans recognize their positions they can come up with a position that checks off their values but can also pass in public opinion.
Team R doesn't really want to ban abortion, but at the same time, they cannot afford to alienate their evangelical voter bloc. By punting the abortion issue to the electorate, they can wash their hands of the issue and tell evangelicals that they need to vote harder.
At the same time, Team D values the abortion issue as a source of cash and votes. In fact, that probably kept the Senate from going to Team R.
I agree that Team R doesn't *really* want to ban abortion, but do you think the gimmicks described above should count as an example of punting the issue to the electorate? If that was really the aim, they wouldn't have bothered with Issue 1.
Going through the gyrations with regard to whether there was no be a referendum in the first place?