The argument of a small minded tyrant.

“On Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) introduced a bill that would ban abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy based on the unproven claim that fetuses can feel pain at that point in development. It includes exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the pregnant person.

The proposal is stricter than versions of the bill Graham has previously introduced, which would have banned abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, and goes further than many existing state restrictions on abortion. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 44 states ban abortion after a certain point in pregnancy, most after about 20 weeks since the pregnant person’s last menstrual period.”

Graham proposed a bill putting restrictions at some point in the pregnancy. It was categorized by the media as a ban, rather than a restriction. Notice the “unproven” claim to the fact unborn children can feel pain.

I rate the claim Graham was behind the idea of a national abortion ban as patently FALSE.

It’s what the media does though. Lie and distort. On the search for an honest journalist.

I’ve got plenty of beefs with Graham. No need to distort his position here.

No, it isn’t. It’s just as immoral as abortion being always legal. Forcing a woman to go through with pregnancy when it will change her body, change her future, and she did not make the choice to even conceive a child (as in the case of rape) is borderline slavery.

But they point to states where abortion has been prohibited and say it’s going to be enacted nationwide if Republicans get in power. And their base believes it. Fear of anti-abortion laws is pretty high here in Washington state where there’s practically no chance of abortion bans.

And because this particular point has been picked at (for me, at least*) in the past week, I feel the need to point out that the GOP has people like Lindsey Graham going out of their way to encourage the idea that the GOP would, in fact, be behind a national abortion ban. Never mind that the decision that annulled Roe did so by announcing that abortion was beyond the scope of the federal government’s remit.

* Caught part of an interview of Graham professing amazement that he was being associated with the RESTRICT Act, professing ignorance of a bill he co-sponsored.

I just want to note that I agree. My point was they could pivot to those other things. The hope that the GOP will hold the line is gone, so how about selling out on the social ideals and at least helping build a safer and more productive society. I understand many will say it is impossible without a moral compass, but if you believe we’ve already lost that compass, then we are lost either way.

My last point about secure and financially well people making better decisions is similar to a view the Jordan Peterson has been making recently in regards to the environment. If you really care about a better world environment, the left wouldn’t be pushing for regulations that destroys our security and economy, because as people become destitute, they make even poorer choices. I think he is right. You want the moral compass back, don’t impose it. Fix the various other problems, and abortion will go down because you did.

Finally, if I going to demand better from the GOP, well then I rather demand better on those things they previously abandoned whether than having them hold the line on abortion. And as Mike K noted (and I was hinting at), 100% abortion ban has its own ethical dilemma that suggest it is very immoral.