Well. That's disappointing because I really wanted to hear the case for claiming that Republicans want to ban abortion because they want to control women's bodies.I read through your post again, and rather than do another big point-for-point response I want to summarize and pivot a bit to address a specific point you made:
Hold on a minute. It sounds like you're saying that, but for being faced with "abortion is murder" they'd not have the "up to birth" position? If that's the argument, are you sure you want to pitch your tent in that spot? Because it sounds really petty.The “up to birth” position is the most logical opposing position to take when faced with the “abortion is murder” position…it’s tit for tat.
To illustrate my point I will ask “when is abortion murder”?
We could plot it on a scale, from “abortion is always murder to abortion is never murder”.
Murder is a capital crime. People who commit capital crimes deserve to spend the rest of their lives in prison.
At what point during pregnancy is it appropriate to sentence a woman to spend the rest of her life in prison for getting an abortion?
That’s how I arrive at my position that abortion is never murder…which you call “up to birth”.
Take “abortion is murder“ off the table, and I’ll yield “up to birth“ in an instant.
You're switching arguments though. The "up to birth" idea does not exist as a tit-for-tat reply to response to "abortion is always murder". It's not to counter the prospect of woman being sent to prison for having an abortion. This is something you just injected. I think you know better. I've never heard Lefties make the point you're trying to make to justify "up to birth".
The rationale is always explained as, the mother always should be able to terminate a pregnancy on demand including up to birth as long as the baby is in the mother's body. Because she always should have the final say what she does with her body. Unless she doesn't want a vaccine.
Now, if you want to back off from that usual rationale, and go with the tit-for-tat thing, that's fine. But then that's petty.
I think this might be an illustration of one of your previous points…that the fringes control the narrative. I think it very much destroys nuance and the ability to find common ground.
Now I'll completely agree that both sides have an outsized voice in the debate. Polls taken since RvW was overturned have remained fairly consistent. The "total ban" and "anything goes" factions are small. And the 51% majority are taken for a ride that most don't realize they don't want to be on.
When the talking head on the CNN says that "Trump supporters" want to control women's bodies and ban abortion in all states, that's disingenuous, because not all Trump supporters want that. About half the voting public support Trump.
Only about 15% of the voting public want a total ban. That demonstrates not a majority of Trump voters actually want a total ban. In fact, some non-Trump supporters don't like him because he doesn't want a total ban. It looks like his opinion is in step with the majority. But that's not how the issue is being reported. They're tying Trump to a minority group, who aren't even all Trump supporters.
Then the outsized influence the total ban folks have a greater impact on the policy than their actual size.
Indiana illustrates this point. So a pew research poll puts the total ban numbers at 51%. It's going through the courts, but it's fairly likely that it's gonna go with the slim majority. So then a whole state is affected. I mean that's how democratic processes work. The 51% get their way and the 49% pound sand.