Sign up and stay connected to your favorite communities.

sign uplog in
Sort by
Single comment thread. View all comments 

How is Iowa both so progressive and so backwards at the same time? I've never understood it lol

819 points · 2 months ago

Koch has bought all the politicians and Iowans are too polite to argue

Pretty much, 1/2 the population highjacked by single issues supporting a party that acts against their own voters on everything outside the single issue.

Don't forget that the Single Issue will be some stupid social issue like abortion (solved) or guns (cant have a shooting without a gun) or welfare (god forbid we help our fellow country men)

233 points · 2 months ago

Abortion, it seems to me, is the single greatest issue holding back good government. You say it’s “solved” but there are literally millions of people who disagree. And I don’t only mean the asshole hypocrites who want to control women’s sexuality or who are compassionate for the fetus, but toss the baby away.

There are (I know some of them) millions of people who are caring, compassionate, and relatively progressive people for whom abortion is literally baby murder. These are people who don’t have a problem paying taxes for government programs to help those in need, who would be in favor of single payer healthcare systems so that everyone can get help, people that aren’t dismissive of racial and gender issues in this country. But for these people, I mean murder is about the worst crime you can commit, and from their point of view it’s literally infanticide. They may dislike the cronyism, the corporate capture, and even recognize and hate the hypocrisy demonstrated by the Republican Party... but they still vote R because they believe abortion to be murder.

I’m actually kind of curious how you say abortion is solved. It’s an issue I’ve given a lot of thought to and while I have my own opinion about it, when it comes to a question of “murder” it boils down to when life begins. Is it at conception? Is it a few weeks after the blastula has started to speciate? Is it when the nervous system first forms? Is it when the heartbeat starts? Is it when the fetus is viable outside the mother’s womb? Currently legally it is defined as the last one, but philosophically speaking, there are strong arguments for any one of those points. And the philosophy of it is important because that impacts how people feel and vote on this issue. I’ve also concluded that it’s gonna be a long damn time before we all can agree philosophically on this point. Only then will this issue cease to become a huge political sticking point.

79 points · 2 months ago

And yet, the Republicans have failed to make abortion illegal. At best, they've made it inconvenient and humiliating.

If I voted along single issue lines my entire life, and the party I voted for hadn't acted on that issue, I'd probably look elsewhere.

21 points · 2 months ago

Apparently people vote Republican expecting them not to do what they promised

To be honest, I don't think Republican leaders actually want abortion to be illegal. If you make it illegal, you lose a lot of voters who now identify with none of their platform. They have to keep it legal to maintain those voters.

3 points · 2 months ago

And if you make it illegal then it'll be more difficult and expensive for them to pay abortions for their mistresses.

1 more reply

6 points · 2 months ago

Republicans really are the perfect voting base. Fucking idiots.

This is the strongest point regarding abortion. Republican voters are very passionate about this (regardless of motive or morality), and yet the super-majority will do nothing to deliver on it despite it being the biggest reason most of them were elected. It's this inaction that sways single-issue voters from being party-centric.

if you connect the dots for them in their own terms, they won't refute the evidence because they know you're right in a deep and personal way.

"Why keep voting for Republicans if they don't deliver on what they promised? There's no reason they can't get it done, there's no one standing in their way. They haven't done anything because they simply don't care about saving babies like you do. They know that if they went out and actually did make abortion illegal, they couldn't count on your sympathy for children to guarantee them your vote. It's the easiest vote to get, they only have to say they're pro-life and not actually BE pro-life. You'll vote red for life if abortion never gets addressed. And they know that. Maybe you should vote based on more than one issue."

That's quite an interesting take on it. Like the pest exterminator that leaves a breeding pair to keep himself in a job.

1 more reply

At best, they've made it inconvenient and humiliating.

Actually, a lot of the latest issues is that they also made it perfectly legal to compete with abortion clinics and pretend to be health clinics but actually just try to convince the woman not to abort. As long as they don't actually offer "medical" advice, they can give any kind of advice they want.

4 points · 2 months ago

"The definition of insanity..."

They don’t want it to be illegal, they want to hurt women on behalf of richwhite hatechristians, and have a battle to fight that gets morons out to vote.

Ok. While I was finishing my history BA, in my History of the U.S. Consitution course we literally spent a week breaking down the Rowe v. Wade decision. It is much more extensive and thoughtful than most people think. The following comes from the Wikipedia summary:

While acknowledging that the right to abortion was not unlimited, Justice Blackmun, speaking for the Court, created a trimester framework to balance the fundamental right to abortion with the government's two legitimate interests: protecting the mother's health and protecting the "potentiality of human life." The trimester framework addressed when a woman's fundamental right to abortion would be absolute, and when the state's interests would become compelling. In the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court left the decision to abort completely to the woman and her physician.[43] From approximately the end of the first trimester until fetal viability, the state's interest in protecting the health of the mother would become "compelling."[44] At that time, the state could regulate the abortion procedure if the regulation "reasonably relate[d] to the "preservation and protection of maternal health."[45] At the point of viability, which the Court believed to be in the third trimester, the state's interest in "potential life" would become compelling, and the state could regulate abortion to protect "potential life."[44] At that point, the state could even forbid abortion so long as it made an exception to preserve the life or health of the mother.[46] The Court added that the primary right being preserved in the Roe decision was that of the physician to practice medicine freely absent a compelling state interest – not women's rights in general.[47]

TLDR: That itself is a SINGLE SECTION of a SUMMARY regarding Rowe v Wade. The decision understood how contentious the subject is. The problem is that most people against the decision have neglected to ever attempt to read or understand it. They take an absolute stance on an issue that is anything but, and because of this ignorance our political system has been held hostage ever since. Even if a “perfect” compromise could be struck, this lack of education and empathy would hamstring this hypothetical perfect compromise as well.

A lot of the single issue voters would rather the mother die than have an abortion.

I mean, that's a wholly reasonable middle ground objective stance to take on what's otherwise a nearly impossible to solve philosophical-moral dilemma.

I'm pro-abortion, but I also recognize that the rejection of abortion isn't just The Patriarchy or whatever. It's an extreme grey area, and both sides need to recognize that fact. It's understandably contentious, but on the other hand it's not something you should base your vote on, given how complex and difficult the question is.

It's like basing your entire politics on a black-and-white position over whether a tree falling in a distant forest makes a sound. I get that abortion has more real stakes than that, but the actual question underlying the debate is just a "depends on how you look at it" sort of thing, regarding the Right of the Unborn and how exactly you assign value/importance to vague concepts like pre-birth rights and their weight versus that of a person's right to determine what happens to their own body.

Yep. I used to be “Pro-life” but I gave up that label when I realized I could never make this type of decision for someone else.

3 points · 2 months ago

It is a kind of amazing Judgment of Solomon (pun absolutely intended). It basically works, but note that subsequent cases, like Casey v. Planned Parenthood, have placed further limits on the right articulated in Roe.

Oh yes. You are correct. My intent with the original comment was only to show the complexity and thoughtfulness of the decision. Subsequent cases have both refined and expanded upon the initial decision.

Thanks very much for this insightful and informative comment

Well there is a Supreme Court ruling. As for a party's stance, I think it should be to "reduce abortions". This includes education, birth control, adoption support, and support of new families. Unfortunately, those against abortion also seem to not want to do any of those.

113 points · 2 months ago · edited 2 months ago

It irks me to no end how people most who are anti-abortion are also against the things that help reduce the amount of abortions that happen. Planned Parenthood, Safe Sex Education, and increased social programs aimed to lift people out of poverty who are most at risk of having an abortion (particularly women of color). If "Pro Life" people actually cared about reducing abortion rates, they'd be fighting for Planned Parenthood, not protesting against them. But they don't understand what the organization does. They just obsess over pictures of aborted fetuses and scream at the wall.

The only rational conclusion to this irrationality is pro-life people don't care about reducing abortion rates. They don't care if safe sex education is more effective than abstinence education, they wouldn't even look at any statistics related to that if you put it in front of them on a gigantic sign in 72 512-point Futura. They care about returning America to "Puritanical Christian Values" and leverage outrage against abortion as a way to fuel this objective.

Edit: Apparently my hyperbole's font size should be even bigger.

6 points · 2 months ago

They care about returning America to "Puritanical Christian Values" and leverage outrage against abortion as a way to fuel this objective.

Yup. You want to hear a good example, check out the first half of this episode of Loveline, which had two women from Planned Parenthood and Right to Life involved in a debate over the issue. They specifically asked about "why aren't you promoting things like condoms and better sex education?" and it boiled down to "no sex before marriage".

1 more reply

3 points · 2 months ago

To be fair, 72-point is only 1 inch. I don't think anyone would notice that on gigantic sign.

I love that font

You're describing anti-choice people, not pro-lifers. The pro-lifers are all about reducing the amount of abortions that happen with sex ed and contraception, and would never get an abortion themselves. Anti-choice people are just that, anti-choice. They want no birth control or abortions, just to punish women for sex for everyone whether they like it or not.

I've never met one of pro life people you describe. They all base their objection entirely on their religious beliefs.

1 more reply

1 more reply

9 points · 2 months ago · edited 2 months ago

Roe v. Wade didn't completely solve this issue, though, as proven pretty easily by the fact that we still see SCOTUS take cases on the matter. There have been at least eight important SCOTUS rulings on abortion since they decided Roe, and there's still plenty of grey area to work out. We see the effects of this uncertainty with each and every state law that seeks to limit women's access to abortions. (Edit: Oh, and not just state law - the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is another great example of how this isn't solved even at the federal level.)

Furthermore, just because the court ruled one way doesn't mean they can't rule the other. I don't think we're anywhere near seeing Roe overturned, but that doesn't mean it's a lost cause for people on the other side of the aisle.

Comment deleted2 months ago(More than 12 children)

But it's totes legit to support someone invading Iraq and killing millions of brown people, right?

Totes legit? That's what used to make you the ultimate Christian, going on the holy crusade and killing Muslims. They're proud to be killing these people, it makes them feel better.

Yet the people coming back from killing brown people are killing themselves at ridiculous rates.

More active-duty soldiers committed suicide than died in Iraq in 2012. In 2014, veterans and active-duty soldiers were killing themselves at a rate of 20-22 per day.

It's the warhawks in Washington that have no problems killing brown people. Most of those serving in the military are doing so because of misplaced grandeur and patriotism.

Jesus-people are fucking insane man, there’s no use attempting to rationalize their thought process. Their blind faith predisposes them to delusion and hysteria as is. Technology and widespread education in science is thinning out their ranks with each passing generation. Just give it time - common sense will prevail in the end.

Queue the evangelical downvotes.

I wouldn't paint with such broad strokes, but you're right in that they seem completely comfortable with things Jesus overtly opposed. They've convinced themselves of a complex narrative that justifies war by believing that it's a war on their eternal souls they need to fight for.

When evangelicals support wars in the Middle East, it's because they believe the goal of every Muslim is to kill Christians and Christianity. One hundred percent of the time. It's why they use defensive language. Never mind the fact that westernizing Islamofascist nations results in less extremism, they think EVERY Muslim is out to kill them, even kind neighbors of theirs.

BUT, that's not the entirety of Christians. Truly devoted followers who don't read the Bible from a position of defending their lifestyles will allow the words of Christ to govern their motives and actions. These are the ones who build homes in Haiti while aftershocks are still rolling through the countryside, who organize food drives for food shelves, who go to impoverished nations to teach the disadvantaged people how to read and write and earn a living in a trade. Unfortunately, when Christ called his followers to serve and not to BE served, that flew in the face of the comfortable lives believers weren't willing to give up so they made their own interpretations.

The Bible calls that "having itching ears" that want to hear what they want told. They make their own false teachers to satisfy their greed and laziness, preaching about living their best lives now. They don't realize that their best lives are to be given to others.

Very well put, and I agree with almost everything you've said. It's wrong to generalize people by their faith, and I shouldn't paint all Christians as being bad people, because there are plenty of amazing ones out there.

As you alluded to, it often seems like the ones who are most preachy about being christian are also the most intense hypocrites who engage the most unchristain-like behavior.

Ultimately, while I don't believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, I know that it teaches about good values, most of which I try and embody in my own agnostic existence. From what I've read and been told, Jesus seems like a super cool guy - he was all about understanding and compassion and unlimited forgiveness. He didn't care what color your skin was, who you fucked, what you ate, how often you sinned, or what those sins were - he loved everyone equally. A lot of his most devout followers seem to have forgotten those core values of love and acceptance, and practice what I can only describe as hate. It's disappointing, and has, unfortunately, tainted my view of Christianity as a whole.

4 more replies

1 more reply

The stupid part is that republicans have no desire to do anything besides hamstring abortions. If they made it illegal what the fuck would they ge people to vote for their horrible economic policies with?

If they made it illegal what the fuck would they ge people to vote for their horrible economic policies with?

Republicans are so good at this. You can't hold issues over voters heads if you solve them. You make a half-assed attempt that looks good to the uninformed and then fear monger your base saying that the Democrats will reverse all the hard work you've done if they are elected. They do the same shit with immigration.

1 more reply

Wedge issue. Right on. Hopefully the Democrats aren't doing the same. Voters have to hold their reps accountable.

2 more replies

3 points · 2 months ago

when you paint yourself into a corner by calling it murder. One is too many.

Very true, but none is a non starter. They could hopefully still see it as saving lives and moving towards zero.

If someone feels something is immoral, laws don't really help. I mean, at one point it was legal to own another human being, but the fact that it was legal wouldn't make abolitionists calm down about it. In other words, laws aren't morals, so don't expect laws to solve moral issues or disagreements. I'm with tjtillman, to fully appreciate how strong these single issues can be, you have to view it from the perspective of people that hold them.

As far as they're concerned, one verse in the Book of Jeremiah that the Catholics interpreted as "life starts at conception" means they're committing genocide of they support it.

and specifically those who are pro-choice/pro abortion actively support those programs because they all fall under the "healthcare services" umbrella that abortion is only a small part of.

1 more reply

Not who you replied to, but from my view abortion is solved in so much as the current legal state of it isn't going to change anytime soon, if ever.

I agree, That’s true. However in the minds of many voters it’s far from settled and there continues to be a great deal of action working toward appointing conservative justices and restricting access to abortion clinics to the point of absurdity.

From this standpoint it’s far from a solved issue and continues to drain political and financial resources away from areas where they’d be better spent.

I'm in Ireland right now where we're voting on this very thing in a few weeks.

Trust me when I say banning abortion has horrible consequences.

I suggest you read the reports of the citizens assembly we had on the issue and explore what they looked at.

28 points · 2 months ago

Trust me when I say banning abortion has horrible consequences.

America knows, it's why we made it legal in the 70s. But some people are morons who don't learn anything from history.

New Jersey
2 points · 2 months ago

A lot of those same people call the Civil War "The War of Northern Aggression" and think that the South won somehow.

Republican on gun control: “Prohibition does nothing, if people want it enough they’ll get it from somewhere else or 3D print one” (someone seriously said this once)

On abortion: “The only responsible thing to do is prohibition. That’ll stop it.”

Yeah a crappy gun can be 3D printed, and a crappy abortion can be done at home. My problem isn’t so much that republicans hold this view but that they don’t apply it to things they want. It’s a fair stance, that prohibition doesn’t work, so then they should stop supporting harsh charges for minor drug offenses and trying to make things illegal.

That's only the lower receiver and still requires purchasing things like barrel, bolt, upper receiver, buffer and ammunition. It's also no different really from taking a piece of raw material and machining it down to a lower receiver.

There are printable files for completely printed pistols, but they can only withstand a few shots before breaking.

1 point · 2 months ago · edited 2 months ago

That's only the lower receiver

Isn't that the only part that's regulated? I mean, I suppose if you want to outlaw metal tubes with rifling and hunks of plastic in certain shapes, but that sure sounds like a tough sell, especially if we're keeping hunting rifles and such legal.

no different really from taking a piece of raw material and machining it down to a lower receiver

Pointing a file you downloaded at a cheap, specialized CNC mill is orders of magnitude easier than machining a lower receiver with traditional tools, though.

completely printed pistols, but they can only withstand a few shots before breaking.

When made of plastic? We're not talking Makerbots here. We're talking CNC milling, which is getting, and will only continue to get, more affordable.

Look, you can argue the details all you want, but the fact is, the home manufacture of unregistered firearms is possible, right now, with a $2000 machine and some readily available parts. You can even go full auto if you want. And it's only going to get worse as technology improves and becomes cheaper. If we're going to seriously implement some common-sense gun control, we'd be foolish to not take this stuff into consideration.

On edit: Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying 3D printers and CNC mills should be outlawed. I'm a tinkerer and DIYer, I'd love to have an X-Carve. I'm just saying, the technology can have plenty of less-than-innocent uses, and everyone should be mindful of that.

Same with drugs.

I think if we can get more people to consider the idea that making abortion illegal doesn't take away the option to get an abortion, it takes away the option to get a safe abortion it would help.

I know that personally I was def a lot more on the Republican side of the issue, but then I read some accounts of women who got illegal abortions in the 40s and 50s in the US and it changed my mind. Back alley abortions are absolutely horrifying, and the women who got them weren't doing it for fun, they got them because it was either back alley abortion or die. I think if more people think about it in that context, the attitude switches from we need no abortion to we need abortion reduction.

Typed on mobile sorry if the formatting is horrible

Yep, I agree with this. While I've come to realize that I could never do it, I can't expect every other woman to have my experiences or values, and eventually live with the choices we make. And as the decision indicates, it's tricky. And I have come to think, in many cases, it SHOULD be a choice.

And if they really want to cut down on the baby murder then they should know that progressive sexual policies reduce the number, not increase it.

6 points · 2 months ago

Thanks for saying this. Currently in a text message "discussion" with a woman who used to be the parental chaperone of a youth ministry I used to lead as a teen. I sent her the Pope's latest writing where he talks about holding abortion above other issues which should be equally sacred, but she hasn't yet responded to that after two days, I daresay I've bamboozled someone who used to be like a surrogate godparent to me. Abortion is definitely holding the country back.

Abortion is a necessary evil. It’s not a decision women come to lightly or flippantly (of course you can find an outlier but they only illuminate my point). It’s necessary because the decision to have unplanned, unprotected sex happens way too often and usually does not indicate that person is ready to care for a life. Sorry, but if you are against it, then don’t have one. You can devote your energy to birth control, real sex education and resources for underprepared parents.

It’s a crazy hypocrisy how much we fret over the fetus when we care so little for the lives that are here. What would Jesus do? Chastise some single mom on welfare and three other kids into having another baby with no means to support it. Or maybe look at the rest of us who are turning a blind eye while America and Russia take their war on a tour of poor countries and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people. I’m sorry, but a lot of these “religious” people live a tiny bubble, look around, the powers that be in this world do not give a shit about human life, if you don’t have money you are as expendable as a sheep or a cow. And we’re supposed to be harassing people into having MORE children. Mind you own business, and accept that there’s ugliness out there.

5 points · 2 months ago

Legally, it's pretty solved. Roe was decided in '73.

There are literally people who are grandparents who were born after Roe was decided.

Sure, conservative activists still try to nibble around the edges going after late-term abortions ("Partial-Birth" is a propagandist term) but it's not an issue where you're changing anyone's mind and the anti-abortion activists are dying off.

Legally it’s solved, but practically speaking it isn’t. Look at so many states that have reduced the number of clinics to less than 5 in their entire state and in a few cases 1. It didn’t just happen this way, this was a concerted effort made by people who disagree with the law as is. And they are determined not to give up this fight until they overturn the legal decision.

As for anti-abortionists dying off. Perhaps that’s true, and perhaps 100 years from now it’s not an issue. But until that happens, abortion will continue to be an extremely contentious issue, and THE issue for many voters

Do you have any sources on the abortion clinic numbers?

I've heard that quite frequently, but I find it hard to believe there aren't any physicians in the cities in these red states that provide these services while not explicitly being abortion clinics.

So the way they’ve often been able to do this legislatively is by requiring any abortions to be done at very specific locations (like say a hospital rather than a clinic) and that they have very unreasonable physical space requirements that often only hospitals can accommodate. Even if physicians are willing to perform the procedure, the laws have whittled down the locations down to a few places. They also add onerous requirements such as having to visit twice. If you’re poor, have to travel 200 miles to the only facility that can accommodate you, and you have to do it twice on different dates, it becomes increasingly difficult.

You’re making reasonable discussion points, but very anti-abortion types are also against contraception. Most of those are against premarital sex. Some are just plain against sex.

This has become a constant moving of the goalposts. Is throwing away sperm from a sperm bank murder? How about frozen eggs?

Unfortunately, the position that abortion is murder loses validity when the discussion starts because often these people are theocratic.

Roe v Wade was a grand compromise as a solution. We now have RU486. Is that murder?

2 more replies

So you support all the social and educational programs that could be put in place to reduce abortions? Great, welcome to the opinion 99% of us have.

If the GOP supported access to contraception, fact based sexual education, and comprehensive child support programs then they could be taken seriously. Don't outlaw about, decentivize it by improving access to pregnancy prevention and by reducing the massive costs of raising a child.

Arguing on whether abortion is murder is obfauscating the issue. People will seek abortions if they feel it's the best alternative. Criminalizing the behavior is just going to make abortions more risky, it won't solve the problem of unwanted pregnancy.

I just simply cannot reconcile an anti abortion and an anti sexual education, contraception access and child raising subsidies as anything other than a policy that punishes women.

I don’t disagree with anything you said. The problem is that Republicans explicitly try to obfuscate this issue to motivate those single-issue voters to keep them in power.

1 more reply

We will never all agree.

Yep, use social issues to Trojan horse corrupt policy. I'm not against any democrat that swings a pro life platform in conservative bastions. Roe v wade won't be overturned federally.

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others = Solved.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!

I was gonna say abortion is completely seperate from the rest. that issue will never die. some see it as murder, some dont. honestly i think if any given politician wants support he should attempt to stay away from abortion. that issue will never be solved, nobody is gonna stop seeing it as murder

They may dislike the cronyism, the corporate capture, and even recognize and hate the hypocrisy demonstrated by the Republican Party... but they still vote R because they believe abortion to be murder.

Even when the said hypocrisy involves abortion? Remember the number of times "pro-life" republicans have had their mistresses abort.

Yes, even when the hypocrisy happens. Those individuals don’t like it, but they’re left with a two party system. And within that system, one party that, through judicial appointments, is trying to make abortion illegal and one that is not.

A close friend of mine, his wife voted for Trump not because she thought highly of him, not because she agreed with his platforms, positions, and certainly not because of his demeanor, but because he would appoint a conservative Supreme Court Justice.

2 points · 2 months ago · edited 2 months ago

The GOP has held pro-life single issue voters hostage, and there's a lot of them. My mother in law is one. She knows that she is voting against her self interest when she votes Republican, but it is the issue she cares about the most so she'll keep on doing it.

The crazy part in my mind is how little of an issue this has to be if we would provide easy access to education and contraception, but for some reason the people most against abortion are also against these. We're tackling this from the back end when we could just deal with it up front. Sure there's situations where it would still come up, but it would be so.much more rare.

I truly do not understand the wave of anti-intellectualism we’ve seen grow in the past 20 years. It’s holding us back exponentially it feels like.

3 points · 2 months ago

I have hunch there are not millions who consider abortions murder but what their religion told them to.

The only context within the Christian Bible that abortion appears, it is explicitly allowing for it and giving directions on how to perform one.

These religious zealots aren't told by scripture. They are told to be against abortion because of the likes of Falwell creating a wedge issue out of nothing. They were dupped by a bigot using a cross as a crudgel.

What verse are you referring to that gives directions on how to perform an abortion?

It speaks about a liquid that brings a curse that causes a miscarriage if the wife is 'adulturous'.

3 more replies

So, technically and philosophically speaking, one doesn’t have to follow a religion to consider abortion murder. A Buddhist or an atheist could come to that conclusion.

And look I’m not arguing that the hypocrites don’t exist, they certainly do, but it’s not even close to all the pro life people.

omg what a waste of your time waiting for philosophical agreement. You are never going to educate enough people on that issue enough to come to a consensus. You are asking stupid, circular questions in the context of the masses. Feel free to do it within the niche of philosophy circles, but when it comes to reigning in 300+ million people around a controversial issue, you're wasting your time. You have to be very direct and stop asking those questions when you cross over and work at this scale. You're only going to confuse and divide people.

ps you're putting too much optimism and hope into "coming to a philosophical agreement" without taking into long will the agreement last? You're going to spend 100 years getting society to agree on this, there will be peace on the issue for a couple generations and then some bad apples will start to press the issue again and here we go. The whole thing is circular, the best you can do with your time is consider it solved at the federal level but press on for more funding and less undermining. And voting out those RAT REPUBLICANS.

I’m not waiting for anything and I myself, not merely because of abortion, but for a host of reasons will trying to vote republicans out.

My argument was not that we need to “wait it out” but rather that it will not cease to be a fundamental issue of disagreement until that happens (hopefully eventually).

To put it blunt, it sounds like for the individuals you reffer to the hold up is rooted in a lack of information on the issue, not nessesarily philosophy or governance.

It’s about legality. Making it illegal will create a public health crisis and increase poverty. Just like drugs, it exists, it is going to exist whether or not it’s illegal, so treat it like the health problem it is.

One challenge is how the problem is defined. The "it's not a human before weeks therefore not murder" is largely just a way to feel okay about, but there's no true right place to draw that line. We kid ourselves that there is and that we can eliminate the nuance. The problem with humans and legal systems is they need to codify everything, so you can pass every case through a right-and-wrong machine and the correct verdict will pop out. Is abortion morally wrong? Probably, but sometimes a morally questionable choice is the less wrong choice for a given situation and therefore the right thing to do.

I don’t disagree with any part of your comment. My argument was only to demonstrate that we’re not likely going to be able to come to a societal consensus on this extremely contentious issue anytime soon.

True i agree, and i guess i was expanding on your point to talk at the specific issue of why it's unsolvable. It's not that there's no position that doesn't violate someone's principles, but there's no position that doesn't violate everyone's principles. So what we end up with is two main camps who are divided not by which principle is "higher up" in their value rankings, but by which dubious mental side-step they have adopted to undermine their lesser-held principle to escape the cognitive dissonance. To generalise the problem looks like left leaners tend to use use language to make wrong things appear right, but its just a syntactic sleight of hand. Right leaners, commit a different sin of thinking there's neat boundaries between right and wrong, but that approach leads one to miscategorise a lot of greys and results in absurd applications of "the law" which is really just our "best attempt" framework for codifying human values.

Thank you for your eloquent and insightful comment. Are you Canadian? British?

The only thing I might phrase differently myself is where you said left leaners use language as a syntactical sleight of hand. I’m not sure it’s sleight of hand as much a rationalization: “yes it’s not good, but I believe the benefits outweigh the negatives.”

To be clear I’m not making a value judgment on this rationalization, only that it is just that.

1 point · 2 months ago · edited 2 months ago

Australian, and yes but for me, maybe i tend to think of those people as being not as far left on the issue, but as being cognizant of the various perspectives but having a preference (as opposed to those further left who would characterize it as clear-cut on the basis of accepted definitions alone, and deny the dilemma). I'm thinking out loud here, but it seems like the difference between the extreme positions is how they gerrymander the truth. One side tends to manipulate language boundaries to encroach on taboo territorities while the other takes liberties with circumstantial boundaries so as to deport inconvenient contexts from the discussion entirely.

It already has a legal definition that was agreed upon by the US Supreme Court, so, there's that. And weighing a few cells worth of human against the impact of forcing women everywhere into your specific viewpoint is where we disagree.

So I’m not sure that you and I disagree. I believe in the societal and gender equality benefits of having legal abortion. My argument was only to demonstrate that it’s not merely a fringe issue promoted by hypocrites, but probably the defining issue in American politics.

Yeah rhetorical "we."

And the philosophy of it is important because that impacts how people feel and vote on this issue.

Lol, people are not largely thinking about this issue philosophically. To be brutally honest, most people against abortion are somewhere between "Eww, dead baby pics," and "My pastor said abortion is murder so abortion is murder." If people were thinking about issues of identity and consciousness, then we could probably come to a compromise on the issue. But if you start with a bedrock belief of life beginning at conception, there is no room for reasoned debate. The real divide behind abortion to me is the one between unexamined belief and critical thought.

To your point about abortion being the main issue. I was listening to a show that was having people from Alabama call in to discuss who they were voting for in the special election. Every single person who said they were voting for Moore said they were doing so because of Jones' stance on abortion.

There are (I know some of them) millions of people who are caring, compassionate, and relatively progressive people for whom abortion is literally baby murder.

And yet consistently will vote against policies that will reduce abortions. They’re either short sighted or not as caring as you believe them to be.

It doesn't matter what the issue is. If it isn't that one, they'll just pick another one. What matters is that they push one issue over and over and over and over again. Democrats should learn from that, and turn their voters into single issue voters.

1 point · 2 months ago

We'll never agree on it. We could hope that years from now, those who's philosophy on personhood are influenced by their faith can separate that from the legal workings of society, but that's highly unlikely.

I would wager the previous poster considers abortion solved in the idea that Roe v. Wade decided the issue on a national level decades ago, and there's no true avenue for overturning it, short of completely stacking the Supreme Court. Repeated challenges at the state level are almost always shot down aside from the more rare successes that limit abortion clinics themselves. Republican politicians have realized they can't stop it, only gain small victories on the margins. Republican voters, when they realize that, will have some soul searching to do.

On a related note, people who don't like abortion do not just fall on the pro-life side. The vast majority of pro-choice advocates also want to see as few abortions as possible. I'd wager that no woman WANTS to have an abortion - it's simply the last line of defense against bringing an unwanted child into the world. They're expensive, emotionally draining, and still carry risk. Better to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than terminate it after it starts. Unfortunately, many of the pro-life side argue against things such as contraceptives as well.

Well said. Thank you for your thoughtful response.

If only science could invent a cheap ways to prevent pregnancy without requiring an abortion. If such thing were to be invented, surely these millions of caring and compassionate people would jump for joy. They would certainly agree with government programs promoting this scientific breakthrough. But alas, controlling birth before contraception remains a mystery.

Abortion, it seems to me, is the single greatest issue holding back good government

It is. I've had a guy tell me he'd let the government take everything he owns before he votes for a baby killer.

The most effective way to eliminate abortions is to prevent the need for an abortion. A robust sex education (and education in general), a functional social safety net, effective counseling, and access to health care and birth control is the only proven method of reducing abortion.

If you are against this, you are pro abortion, or you don't care about abortion save as a means to an end.

I couldn’t agree with you more

I actually agree. The left would have a lot more pull if the single issue abortion voters didn't vote Republican despite it working against every other interest they have

The sooner people realize this, the sooner we can go back to compromising and a functional government.

Fetus viability gets earlier and earlier as medical science progresses. My really good friend had her cervix thin really early into her pregnancy right around 21 weeks. Luckily she managed to stave off labor for another week and she gave birth to two 22-week old babies (premie twins is much riskier, sadly, many times one passes away). The point is as medical science progresses, the babies that were aborted in the past due to "inviability" are now suddenly viable. So basing the law on "viability" to me seems like goalposts that will be, by nature and by science, constantly moved.

edit: yes the babies are doing wonderful, they are at home now and at 37 weeks.

Funny thing is, abortion was legal until the late 19th Century in the US and it became illegal primarily for medical safety reasons, not religious ones. So evangelicals were basically OK with it until they decided it was biblically bad in the 20th century. The fact that they had to scrape the biblical barrel to find a verse supporting their position suggests that there’s something else behind their opposition to abortion other than religion.

I literally didn’t know this, thank you! Do you happen to have a source for this? (Don’t mean to shove that responsibility on you, it’s just a comment thread, not a thesis, but I’d like to read more about that.)

2 more replies

If I saw one legitimate pro life organization really pushing for comprehensive sex education, improved access to birth control, and improved foster care resources, then I might believe they actually want to reduce the number of abortions, and not just control women's bodies.

They may dislike the cronyism, the corporate capture, and even recognize and hate the hypocrisy demonstrated by the Republican Party... but they still vote R because they believe abortion to be murder.

I worked in politics and have had many MANY random political conversations with strangers all over this country.

I have never met this person. I have met many people claiming these people exist, & many people online claiming to be this person. But never have I met someone who cares about the baby after birth, (i.e. any social programs) healthcare, GOP hypocrisy, etc. but just can't bring themselves to vote for a democrat because of "baby murder."

This is just not a political strain in America. (sure there may be a hand full of actual people) The fact of the matter if you are actively "anti-abortion" you are a hypocrite. Because your preferred political representatives literally promote polices that make abortions more abundant. From anti-birth control, to abstinence only "education."

Do people reflexively claim "i don't like killing babies" when someone is forced to defend their GOP status in public? But they are GOP voters for other reasons too. (i.e. they HATE something else, way more than they care about hypocrisy or anything else you think)

"I’m actually kind of curious how you say abortion is solved."

I believe "it is solved" because i'm not saying politically. I'm saying as an actual issue. When in areas you have good sex education, access to healthcare & family resources abortions are actually pretty rare, for all those reasons. Do they still happen? sure, a lot of non ideal things happen in an imperfect world.

The "problem" that is not solved is the political BS that swirls around the issue to defend unjustifiable behavior by the politicians who promote them.

The issue has been resolved by the Supreme Court, instead of thinking of it as a moral question you need to think of it as a legal question, "can the government the government pass a law preventing women from getting an abortion" This would be a law that specifically targets half the population (laws which target certain groups are considered unconstitutional) and infringes on what is considered a liberty under substantive due process. The government previously also banned access to contraceptives and this was struck down in the same vein. Also banning abortion won't stop abortions, they will happen under worse conditions with worse medical practitioners, probably leading to more deaths. Not to mention, it's pretty apparent a Republican will endorse an abortion when convenient (cough cough Broidy).

I myself support the right to abortion for the societal and gender equality benefits it brings. As for the question of solution, yes it is legally solved. Unfortunately, in the minds of the electorate, it’s still quite controversial and continues to be (unfortunately) the single strongest driving issue in American politics.

You can separate the anti-abortion crowd into two camps by finding out how they feel about the morning after pill.

Sort of. There’s also a lot of ignorance and misinformation about how it works, that wrongfully think it’s an abortive pill.

However, yes, those that know it’s not abortive and still are against it, then it’s a question of attitudes toward sexual liberty and pretty much (in my opinion) bullshit.

There are (I know some of them) millions of people who are caring, compassionate, and relatively progressive people for whom abortion is literally baby murder.

Then they aren't really caring, compassionate, or progressive. Forcing a woman to carry to term a child she doesn't want can and often is literally life-ruining (sometimes life-ending) for the woman and starts the unwanted child's life at a huge disadvantage. Forcing bad outcomes on women and the unwanted children they bring into the world - denying them the autonomy to make the choice that only they know is best for them and their unborn child - is the antithesis of any of the traits you mention above, and anybody who tries to argue otherwise is being disingenuous.

P.S. You "solve" abortion by giving kids comprehensive, sex-positive sex ed and providing free, easily accessible birth control and contraceptives to anybody and everybody who wants them.

1 point · 2 months ago

I don't get it how so many Americans, especially conservative ones, can be totally fine with killing - be it death penalty, police forces going on a rampage, pro-active 'self defense' or whatever, (castle doctrine etc.), be it socially by severely limiting social security and medical support and so on and so on - but draw such a hard line at the "murder" of the unborn (cells/fetus/baby).

Yeah there is definitely a great deal of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance going on.

I may be reducing the issue too much but it seems to me that when a woman has an abortion, it has no effect on anyone else's life.

If someone does not support abortion, then they can choose to not have an abortion.

1 point · 2 months ago

If they hate abortion then they should be for sex ed, for easily available birth control and safe abortion clinics since it will happen whether we like it or not we should at least make sure the women who do get it are as safe as possible. Voting R is actually causing more unwanted pregnancies, more unsafe abortions and more deaths.

Some women take the decision to have an abortion and if you don't like it that's fine but you should understand it's her right to do it and not shame her.

1 more reply

I get all that, but it can be relatively easily answered by bringing attention to the fact that there is one the party that may genuinely and straitforwardly disagree with them, but that actually pursues solutions to minimize unplanned pregnancies and in effect abortions, and one that is transparently, cynically exploiting their best intentions, while being actively hostile to sex education and accessible birth control AND post-natal care

So I disagree with these methods but republicans in many states have pursued legislative solutions putting onerous restrictions on how quickly one can receive an abortion after first requesting it, and restricting the number of facilities that can perform them (say having space requirements that only a few hospitals in the state could meet).

The methods you mentioned are more compassionate and convenient, and most importantly effective. Was only pointing at that it’s not total inaction on the red side. Just the wrong actions.

1 more reply

29 more replies

I really fucking hate the idea that someone, ANYONE, can vote based on one issue.

I feel like maybe I was lucky to have 1 full year of civics in my highschool, and we where taught a lot of valuable lessons about participating in our democracy.

One of the biggest lessons was to do independent research on the person you are voting for. Chances are if they are running for office, they have a public service record they can point to, a policy page that they can point to, among a myriad of third party sources to figure out if they're the candidate for you.

I wish every highschool had a class like that, We where forced to do research into every major politician in Wisconsin and beyond and argue whether they'd be a worthy politician or not. It was a real eye opener to see a lot of kid's basically just spout off what their parents had force fed them until they learned how to do independent research.

If you do independent research you arent a single issue voter though.

Get an amendment.

Abortion will never be solved until it's permitted retroactively.

If your kid turns out to be a little shit you need to have a second attempt for free. Shove it back in and try again.

This is very intentional. Evangelicals only became interested in abortion in the 80s as a tool of right-wing propaganda. Prior to that, it had pretty much just been a catholic issue.

2 points · 2 months ago

If only the end of Trading Places was real and starring the Kochs. Lose all their money and drop dead of a heart attack on the spot. Fuck these scum.

3 points · 2 months ago

I was actually a subcontractor that worked on their Ft Dodge ammonia plant and heard my shoulder devil telling me to sabotage something on the daily.

2 points · 2 months ago

You're sick. Sick. What a messed up thing to even talk about.

...Tell me more.

1 point · 2 months ago

Ha! Not the case with my in-laws. Their head is right up the R's ass.

Reminds me of Canada.

purely agri state. votes for Pres who promise to end NAFTA and imposition of Tariffs. they arent polite they are ignorant. or at least Im not polite.

Farmers do not want tariffs. The one thing I can see putting a dent in Trump's Midwest base is the tariffs China is threatening to impose on crops

1 more reply

64 points · 2 months ago

Because of Iowa city, proud of my city a blue spot in a Red Sea.

Des Moines too.

I would imagine the other half of the Quad Cities as well?

Sioux City?

They're represented by Steve King, but I think that's more on the surrounding rural communities than on SC itself.


Nice. I was born there. That's why I asked.

Just out of curiosity, do people from Sioux City also call it "Sewer City"? It was very common for people going there to visit.

Never heard Sewer City. Heard Dirty Dodge and Mason Shitty a few times though.

Interesting. I went to college in Wayne, NE and it was commonly called that I'm guessing due to the smell coming off the river in town.

I don’t get to northwest Iowa very often, so that could be. I’m in eastern Iowa.

I wasn't born here but yes; the locals are still calling it that.

Quad Cities repping the blue!

Cedar Rapids as well.

2 points · 2 months ago

Burlington St, yo. See you at Brothers on Wednesday, my dude. I'm then meeting some girl for her 21st at One Eyed Jakes.

Dated myself with some of those. Anyways, see you at Scummit, or OG Panch afterwards.

There's an Iowa kind of special chip on the shoulder attitude we've never been without that we recall. We can be cold as our falling thermometers in December if you ask about our weather in July. And we're so by god stubborn, we could stand touching noses for a week at a time and never see eye to eye.

But what the heck, you're welcome, Join us at the picnic. You can eat your fill Of all the food you bring yourself.

something something something, got to give Iowa a try!

2 points · 2 months ago

this is from the music man. I didn't have to look it up. I understood the reference from the start because I'm cool and stuff.

I think this is the most midwestern thing ever written, doncha know. I feel like a slice of apple pie topped with cheddar cheese after reading this.

populated cites vs rural small town farmers.

What small town farmers? Iowa is a Big Ag state. Those aren't hick village farmers, those are corporations.

7 points · 2 months ago

Don’t corporations contract out the work to poor farmers and abuse the shit out of them? I know that’s how it works in the chicken industry, can’t speak for all of agrarian economies let alone those localized in Iowa.

Maybe for chickens, but crops are a different story.

2 points · 2 months ago

TL;DR on how’s it different? Other than the fact that chickens are a bit more sentient than plants?

7 points · 2 months ago

Most everything they grow in Iowa is heavily mechanized. Think one guy in a tractor, not dozens of migrant workers in a field.

5 more replies

Well, the acreage and investment is much larger, for a start, and the farmers tend to be millionaires, not impoverished.

1 point · 2 months ago

The actual farmers are millionaires? Interesting.

2 points · 2 months ago

Not if we're talking just liquid assets. Most farmers have a ton of money, but the vast majority of it is tied up in the land they farm and the machinery they use.

1 point · 2 months ago

Ahh. Well thanks for the info! Interesting stuff.

Farm land/Machinery is usually pretty expensive no matter where you go. Thats why its always kind of ironic when people make comments about how rural areas are insanely poor, but use farmers as their source.

Chances are, the farmers are the ones in the area who AREN'T poor.

2 points · 2 months ago

Right but that's not the message they're selling to the voters, which is part of the problem.

Well, the issue is that the message being sold is being subsidized by the same types of corporate interests as that of the fossil fuel industries, tobacco industries, retail conglomerates, etc.

Yeah, and the people living in the small towns, of which there are approximately a zillion, work for them.

2 points · 2 months ago

I don't know about the rest of Iowa, but across the river from me in Southwest Iowa it's all family farms. Big family farms run as LLCs, but definitely not "Big Ag" per se.

1 point · 2 months ago

Am I still a hick farmer if I grow crops within city limits? There’s something strangely appealing about being a hick city farmer. Perhaps we need to add to the common vernacular... city slicker hick farmer...

All the urban farmers I know prefer to think of themselves as hip farmers... :)

1 more reply

True story

Worked by small town people

1 point · 2 months ago

Corporations = red

The people who work on those farms are still rural small town farmers if they live in small rural towns, whether they own the farms or just work on them.

These days, farming is more akin to the factory/plantation in the way it operates than any pastoral ideal.

1 more reply

Sounds like America as a whole.

5 more replies

6 points · 2 months ago

My first thought was um, wot... but then I guess it's probable Iowa is like Kansas. If you lived in a place like Lawrence, KS you could ask the same question.

Live in Lawrence, can confirm.

Fuckin Koch brothers and their dumb-as-rocks children.

The backwards part has a lot to do with western Iowa.

Not sure. I've grown up around Des Moines and have lived in the metro for 25 years and when Trump started gaining steam in 2015 I was like "where the fuck are these Trump supporters?!" Cuz everyone at work, home and everywhere in between hated the guy. Then I got a job in small town Iowa just before the 2016 election and talked politics a lot and was like "ahhh, found em"

Same way that Atlanta, a mostly blue city of over 6 million people in a state with a population of 10 million, isn’t enough to turn GA into a battleground state: overrepresentation of rural areas due to decades of gerrymandering

1 more reply

6 points · 2 months ago

How is Iowa both so progressive and so backwards at the same time?

Well the only places that i would consider a little bit progressive are Iowa city and Des Moines. Get outside that and i can count more racists than teeth.

Because west and east Iowa are are two different political identities. Unfortunately, I'm stuck in west Iowa.

Same way America as a whole is

In what way is Iowa "so progressive"?

1 more reply

2 points · 2 months ago


The progressives don't vote.

Because the baby boomers aren’t dead yet.

1 point · 2 months ago

and the caucus isn’t doing anyone any good either.

Places like Des moines and ames have most of the population and progressives, basically everywhere else is ass backward hicks who act like Iowa was part of the confederacy.

Des Moines, Iowa city are progressive the rest of the state is filled with rednecks.

Its progressive?

5 more replies

Community Details





/r/Politics is for news and discussion about U.S. politics.

Create Post


Welcome to r/politics! Please read the wiki before participating.

Our Full Rules


r/politics Rules

Off-topic: Not explicitly about US politics
Out of date: Not published within the last month
Title: Not exact headline. No ALLCAPS
Rehosted: takes majority of content from elsewhere
Content: Not an article/video/sound clip/poll
No paywalls or survey requirements
No incivility, personal attacks, hate speech, etc.
No trolling, novelty accounts, or bots
No solicitation: petitions/volunteer hours/signups
No Hateful Speech

r/politics event calendar

AMA with Sonam Sheth

June 19, 201812:00

AMA with Chris Rogers

June 20, 201823:30

AMA with Mike Warren

June 21, 201820:00

AMA with Aplus

June 27, 20188:00

AMA with Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog

June 29, 20189:00

Other Resources

Here are some external resources that might be useful.

Related Communities


327k subscribers


29.2k subscribers


94.1k subscribers


136k subscribers

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.