A mother is supposed to be willing to give her life for her child (fathers too), not go to a hit man to hack him to bits.

It’s not merely a religious thing as some are claiming. Whittaker Chambers and his wife (both Communists) decided against abortion because they couldn’t do that to a baby (they used the word “baby” and everything). Even the Communists you so despise have more morals than you.

I am not a utilitarian and yet the argument carries weight with me, and I think it should carry weight with everyone.

OBVIOUSLY, it does not.

I believe this question already affected the election of the justice in Wisconsin and will lead to Wisconsin becoming a blue state or certainly more blue. It affected Wisconsin because of the Republican-controlled legislature’s failure to pass an abortion law to replace the 100% restrictive 1849 one.

And I don’t think there’s an argument that could reach the abortion absolutists. Was there an argument that could reach Don Quixote? I believe the motive of the absolutists is not practical at all. It is spiritual – keeping their own hands clean when they vote.

And if you’re a utilitarian this is an argument that carries weight with you. There are lots of pro-life Christians that will not accept this reasoning, because their moral premises are different from the one underpinning this argument.

I don’t know what the argument might be that would reach them, for what it’s worth, and maybe there’s not enough of them that it’s net negative for the GOP if they sit out elections, but I’m skeptical that this is the case.

Neo, that’s just a rationalization. It’s human and unique.

Leaving that aside, and taking up the argument that the baby should gain rights at the time of viability or when the heartbeat can be detected, why are these women not applying their own moral judgements and voting against abortion bills that legalize abortion up to just before it would be infanticide?

I’ve struggled with this issue, and would support an exception for incest and rape– even though the baby is innocent of any offense, even in these cases– but these are rare.

As to allowing abortion for a period of time after conception, the New York Times reports: “Nearly nine in ten abortions occur in the first trimester of pregnancy in the United States, with nearly half of abortions happening in the first six weeks of pregnancy and nearly all occurring in the first trimester.”

Yes, it’s a form of the trolley problem. But more complex and convoluted, because the decision the voter makes can easily lead to the opposite result intended.

And no, there’s no one issue that overrides all others for me, unless it’s something preposterous like “I’m going to nuke the world.”

And the arguments of abortion absolutists still seem self-defeating to me. Nevertheless, I believe I understand their arguments. But it seems to me that even if you (not you personally, necessarily; but any “you”) believe that human life begins at conception, and if you are faced with two candidates, and the Republican supports abortion only in the first 15 weeks, and the Democrat supports abortion until the point of full-term birth, voting for the Republican leads to fewer babies being aborted, and at an earlier stage as well. Not voting for the Republican could enable the Democrat to win, and more fetuses will be aborted.

But my definition of “absolutist” does not entail they won’t vote for a Republican who compromises. They might, if reached with an argument that acknowledges the issues they are facing in the way that they understand them.

The way you are arguing about this, neo, is similar to a trolley problem, though you might not intend it that way. They can either pull the lever or not pull the lever. If they pull the lever then some people may die, if they don’t pull the lever a larger number of people may die. It is a not a problem where there’s one obvious best answer. There is a school of ethics that would tell you there is an obvious best answer but people who think life begins at conception are relatively rare in that school.

I would suggest that the number of people who would say they’d prefer to see a baby die than X number of older kids, if they pull a lever, are very rare. For people that consider life to begin at conception they have exactly this problem but more aggravated.

I know for a fact that I don’t know how to address this in a way that most people on the Right would agree with.

It can only happen for me if the aggregate of the person’s positions is the same or worse than the aggregate of the opponent’s positions. Then I wouldn’t vote, or would vote for the Democrat.

Okay, but then the issues don’t all have equal weight do they? How do you decide that support for Palestine over Israel weighs more or less than support for abortion up to 15 weeks, when up against a Democrat who supports Israel over Palestine and abortion up to birth? Whatever issues resonate with you, feel free to substitute. I’d be surprised if there really are no such issues.

If there are, then please consider that some people are in this position with respect to abortion and that’s why the right thing to do is not obvious to them as it is with you. If there aren’t, it’s possible you don’t have enough premises in common to find a way to reach agreement with those people.

https://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2023/04/10/47-million-in-small-amounts-of-money-donated-to-democrats-apparently-without-the-donors-knowledge-n2621731

And to answer your other question – I cannot think of any ONE line that a candidate would cross that would make that person someone for whom I would not vote (unless it were something preposterous such as: “When I become president I will nuke the entire US”). It can only happen for me if the aggregate of the person’s positions is the same or worse than the aggregate of the opponent’s positions. Then I wouldn’t vote, or would vote for the Democrat.

However, in 2016 I did not vote for Trump. But that had nothing to do with any one stand he took on an issue. In fact, I agreed with most of his stands. But I felt that (a) he didn’t mean a word he said, so his policy positions were irrelevant; and (b) he would be a very dangerous loose cannon as president and might do something exceedingly reckless. During his presidency I was happy to discover that both of those suppositions of mine had been incorrect. I voted for him in 2020.

Of course the argument won’t convince an “absolutist” on abortion. The definition of “absolutist” involves the person’s position against abortion under all circumstances as being non-negotiable and unchangeable. My point – and I believe I’ve already made it – is that there are people who are very strongly against abortion but who understand the practical argument and who will hold their noses and vote for the non-absolutist GOP candidate.