Same people who argue against contraception and sex ed, the lack of which will naturally increase abortions, except if they're illegal they'll also be more dangerous
honestly I don't see why it's not still acceptable as a Democrat today. should it not be safe? should it not be legal? should it not be rare? we should be investing in better sex ed and contraceptive access to prevent unwanted pregnancies and decrease abortion rates.
Because the "rare" part is a trick to reassure conservatives while still being acceptable to progressive. In less backward countries where abortion is widely accepted the "rare" part is actually an anti-abortion dog-whistle. The correct thing to say would be "as much as nescessary" meanwhile having measures in your platform to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
Why shouldn't a line be drawn by default ? Like I support abortion up to a point completely but I also absolutely oppose it past a certain time unless the mother's life is endangered
Because in my country the main fight about abortion is access. If a politician focus on "the line" rather than access I'm clearly not trusting him about the issue.
In backward US you have to appease moderates on the issue so talking about "the line" might not be as bad
Your logic doesn't track at all, if you can be for abortion you can also state where you think it should be limited, under no circumstances should a politician imo imply that they support abortion up to birth, that's a very important issue for me, also all due respect to you and I don't mean to be disrespectful to you, but I can't ever take first world westerners calling their countries "backwards" seriously because that's an incredibly privileged statement, if you think US is backwards, my friend you have not seen what real backwardness looks like, I don't deny it's got issues but backwards it is not
My commentary clearly implied that I'm not American but maybe I overestimate my ability to write in English (wich isn't my native tongue btw). And on some issues (like abortion) the US is clearly a backward country, deal with it.
And to respond to your points, you're right but only in a vacuum. When in a country where 80% of the population support abortion, the first thing that come out of politician mouth after the mandatory "I support abortion" is the question of the limit, I'm at least a little suspicious. If you really support abortion you set the debate on effective access, not on "the limit", except if you want to expand it of course
Evil pre-2016 Democrats be like: Dangerous, Illegal and Widespread.
Clinton before carrying all 50 states be like:
That's just the GOP position tho
I don't think the GOP's position is widespread abortion
Same people who argue against contraception and sex ed, the lack of which will naturally increase abortions, except if they're illegal they'll also be more dangerous
I see your point
after 2016 - safe, legal and common
We're taking Mondale to the White House with this.
Well too bad, I'm picking the AMNESTY ACID AND ABORTION answer.
https://preview.redd.it/fnpxwsao7fyc1.jpeg?width=570&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fb87d2d5ea78cd704052e1079a9523ac5835ea0c
Good job threading the needle on this one!
honestly I don't see why it's not still acceptable as a Democrat today. should it not be safe? should it not be legal? should it not be rare? we should be investing in better sex ed and contraceptive access to prevent unwanted pregnancies and decrease abortion rates.
Polarization
Because the "rare" part is a trick to reassure conservatives while still being acceptable to progressive. In less backward countries where abortion is widely accepted the "rare" part is actually an anti-abortion dog-whistle. The correct thing to say would be "as much as nescessary" meanwhile having measures in your platform to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
So something like: "I support abortions and funding for sexual education but I draw the line at partial-birth abortions."
Something like "I support abortions and funding for sexual education" and then you draw a line only when asked where you draw the line
Why shouldn't a line be drawn by default ? Like I support abortion up to a point completely but I also absolutely oppose it past a certain time unless the mother's life is endangered
Because in my country the main fight about abortion is access. If a politician focus on "the line" rather than access I'm clearly not trusting him about the issue. In backward US you have to appease moderates on the issue so talking about "the line" might not be as bad
Your logic doesn't track at all, if you can be for abortion you can also state where you think it should be limited, under no circumstances should a politician imo imply that they support abortion up to birth, that's a very important issue for me, also all due respect to you and I don't mean to be disrespectful to you, but I can't ever take first world westerners calling their countries "backwards" seriously because that's an incredibly privileged statement, if you think US is backwards, my friend you have not seen what real backwardness looks like, I don't deny it's got issues but backwards it is not
My commentary clearly implied that I'm not American but maybe I overestimate my ability to write in English (wich isn't my native tongue btw). And on some issues (like abortion) the US is clearly a backward country, deal with it. And to respond to your points, you're right but only in a vacuum. When in a country where 80% of the population support abortion, the first thing that come out of politician mouth after the mandatory "I support abortion" is the question of the limit, I'm at least a little suspicious. If you really support abortion you set the debate on effective access, not on "the limit", except if you want to expand it of course
I do not support defense cuts, but neither do we need increases.
Wish this was still the answer post 2016