There are two kinds of christians that really loved Roe.
1) Someone who deep down supports other right wing policies on the merits, but knows that a lot of them aren't first order NICE even if necessary, and finds is easier to say "I'm pro-life" then "yeah I think the criminals should get locked up."
2) A certain kind of leftist christian that boils down to:
A) Jesus acts pretty NICE
B) Christianity must be NICENESS
...
C) Therefore, being NICE means some kind of christian communism. Or at a minimum, the answer to how much we should be transferring to the underclass should pretty much always be MORE on the margin. Copy paste this VIBE onto every public policy.
It's a pretty questionable prognosis. Christ gives no political program and more or less seems to think the Roman state, which was hardly charitable, wasn't something to rebel against.
Paul says people who don't work shouldn't eat. One wonders what he thinks about obese drug addicts having access to unlimited Medicaid.
So they would really like to be on the left. But there is that BABY GENOCIDE problem. How can people that want to be so NICE to their underclass votebanks also not give a shit about some unborn child that can't vote for them and might even be a personal inconvenience? (Hint, its all self interest).
Of course I've never found that kind of NICENESS particularly NICE. More like That Hideous Strength NICE. That's certainly what you get out of Tim Waltz style Niceness, COVID snitch lines and BLM riots. But I digress.
Without Roe, these people can no longer talk past one another.
Putting my cards on the table, the one part of your post that I think makes sense is "how do we reduce the number of abortions." Though I would phrase is slightly differently, "how do we increase the number of births, especially of normal people."
We could do a lot more to make people want to have more kids, but more welfare for the underclass isn't the answer. We already give them a lot, so much they have higher fertility then the middle class. It doesn't seem to cut down on the number of abortions, and even if it did if the price is taxing to the middle class to the point that they stop having children to pay for it we haven't accomplished anything GOOD.
I think your average GOP person is just a middle class normie that wants to have grandchildren. They know that the hedonism and sexual perversion of the left isn't going to help them in that regard. They know the left is a high/low coalition that mostly screws the middle class wherever they can. They don't like abortion but don't consider crusading to stop every inner city crack head from getting one their lives work.
“My fear is in less than ten years being anti-abortion will be as “quaint” as being anti-alcohol.”
What is there to fear about this scenario? People are free to choose sobriety for themselves in this day and age and while this could result in some awkward questions it is often celebrated. In the same way we are free to oppose abortion for ourselves and this is a valid moral decision. But to make it a legal requirement is something else.
The questions confronting the “pro-life” movement now are, “Do you want to lower the amount of abortions or do you want a symbolic victory?” “Do you want to promote life or win?” “Does being ‘pro-life’ mean more than JUST the unborn?”
There are two kinds of christians that really loved Roe.
1) Someone who deep down supports other right wing policies on the merits, but knows that a lot of them aren't first order NICE even if necessary, and finds is easier to say "I'm pro-life" then "yeah I think the criminals should get locked up."
2) A certain kind of leftist christian that boils down to:
A) Jesus acts pretty NICE
B) Christianity must be NICENESS
...
C) Therefore, being NICE means some kind of christian communism. Or at a minimum, the answer to how much we should be transferring to the underclass should pretty much always be MORE on the margin. Copy paste this VIBE onto every public policy.
It's a pretty questionable prognosis. Christ gives no political program and more or less seems to think the Roman state, which was hardly charitable, wasn't something to rebel against.
Paul says people who don't work shouldn't eat. One wonders what he thinks about obese drug addicts having access to unlimited Medicaid.
So they would really like to be on the left. But there is that BABY GENOCIDE problem. How can people that want to be so NICE to their underclass votebanks also not give a shit about some unborn child that can't vote for them and might even be a personal inconvenience? (Hint, its all self interest).
Of course I've never found that kind of NICENESS particularly NICE. More like That Hideous Strength NICE. That's certainly what you get out of Tim Waltz style Niceness, COVID snitch lines and BLM riots. But I digress.
Without Roe, these people can no longer talk past one another.
Putting my cards on the table, the one part of your post that I think makes sense is "how do we reduce the number of abortions." Though I would phrase is slightly differently, "how do we increase the number of births, especially of normal people."
We could do a lot more to make people want to have more kids, but more welfare for the underclass isn't the answer. We already give them a lot, so much they have higher fertility then the middle class. It doesn't seem to cut down on the number of abortions, and even if it did if the price is taxing to the middle class to the point that they stop having children to pay for it we haven't accomplished anything GOOD.
I think your average GOP person is just a middle class normie that wants to have grandchildren. They know that the hedonism and sexual perversion of the left isn't going to help them in that regard. They know the left is a high/low coalition that mostly screws the middle class wherever they can. They don't like abortion but don't consider crusading to stop every inner city crack head from getting one their lives work.
“My fear is in less than ten years being anti-abortion will be as “quaint” as being anti-alcohol.”
What is there to fear about this scenario? People are free to choose sobriety for themselves in this day and age and while this could result in some awkward questions it is often celebrated. In the same way we are free to oppose abortion for ourselves and this is a valid moral decision. But to make it a legal requirement is something else.
The questions confronting the “pro-life” movement now are, “Do you want to lower the amount of abortions or do you want a symbolic victory?” “Do you want to promote life or win?” “Does being ‘pro-life’ mean more than JUST the unborn?”
Too true!