Yes that is absolutely correct.This is basically the issue. When a campaign becomes a simple up or down vote on a virtual total ban on abortion you lose.

Even if the portion that supports a total ban is 65% of GOP voters that leave the libs+Independents+some GOP voters. This results in an L.

You also can't pass something like a 12 week ban because the ultra conservative GOP voters and the ultra liberal voters combine forces and say no.

Exactly there's so many hardliners in the GOP. I'd actually be curious what type of research has been done as far as the sections of the GOP and what their expectations/standards are on abortion relative to their voting power.

If the GOP were smart, they would get a Dem to introduce a bill with roughly the same provisions as the revised Roe decision before it was overturned (i.e. roughly 20 weeks for any reason, rape/incest/medical necessity exceptions afterwards). It wouldn't take more than a handful of GOP legislators to support this in order to pass it, and those people could be carefully chosen from vulnerable swing states or districts. This would end the issue for good. The problem with the Roe decision is that there really is no guarantee to abortion in the 14th amendment and amounted to judicial overreach and legislating from the bench, which is exactly why it was overturned, but if it is passed through Congress in the correct channels, then the issue is solved and laid to rest.

20 weeks is late even for me and I am not exactly the "standard" conservative.

20 weeks is also way too early for the 300 lb pink haired feminists.

I believe in "Brain" as the requirement. (Roughly 10-12 weeks). Conception people view me as killing babies. Heartbeat people view me as killing babies. The leftists view me as committing a woman to slavery, never mind that she had 12 weeks (8 weeks that she should know about) to make a choice.

The simple fact is we don't agree on the criteria of what makes something a "person".

20 weeks = possible viability aka the baby could possibly survive sans thewoman's body, which is what the entire argument is centered on. So if you want to remove the arbitrary nature of this or that organ starting to form then 20 weeks makes the most logical and consistent sense by far.

No one fully agrees, but I'd bet something along the lines of what I proposed would both pass Congress (especially if introduced by a Dem since they are much better at whipping their caucus) and quell the liberal riot over this issue since it would give back what was lost when Roe was overturned.

I personally believe in freely available abortions as a medical procedure between a doctor and a patient. I generally don't believe in denying people medical care that they and their doctor decide are medically appropriate (the only exception that I oppose even if the patient, doctor, and parent consent to it is gender reassignment for minors). Late term elective abortions really aren't a thing, and those procedures are only done because of some kind of emergency anyway. Who wants to be pregnant for 7 or 8 months only to decide "you know what, nah"? With that said, I'd readily accept a compromise that bans elective late term abortions because that procedure is pretty gruesome and really only should be available in the case of a medical emergency. A late term ban with a medical emergency exception effectively isn't a ban on anything since those procedure are only done in an emergency anyway, but whatever, at least it's a failsafe to prevent abuse of the procedure.

Having had this debate a few times I think the sides are arguing different things.

"I have the right over what is in my body-full stop"

"You have a right to your body, but don't have the right to kill a baby inside you".

"You have a right to your body, but you don't have a right to kill a baby inside you, but it is not a baby until X."

You can make a solid viability argument.
You can make a solid conception argument.
You can make a solid development argument.

The only people that are really off base is the up to and including birth.

I view medical necessity as akin reasonable fear of severe bodily harm or death.

Nothing really makes complete sense. 20 weeks is the earliest that a fetus has survived, although babies that premature typically have severe handicaps, and at that age, most still die. 24 weeks is the threshold where the survival hits 50% with proper medical care. But that still says nothing about whether that baby in that case would survive or not, and nobody has a test that can determine viability of a specific fetus before the abortion is done. Brain activity or heartbeat are arbitrary because why should that alone determine a separate person? Why not breathing, which is another essential function for human survival? (hint: because it doesn't breathe on it's own until it's born...).

There are only two non-subjective criteria to delineate when the fetus becomes a separate person with it's own legal rights: conception and birth. At conception when the sperm fertilizes the egg, the new DNA separate from the mother's or father's is created. That is a defensible non-subjective break point since life clearly begins at conception. However, not many people believe that a 2 cell zygote is truly a separate person AND it would also lead to any type of birth control that prevents implantation to be tantamount to murder (and drinking/smoking/etc. during pregnancy, even if you don't know yet, to be child abuse). The other non-subjective break point where everyone in the world agrees it is a separate person is birth. Once the child is born, it is a separate person and you can no longer kill it.

With so little agreement on the subject, I believe that the best definition is the one where everyone actually does agree - birth. Let people decide for themselves whether they consider abortion to be murder or not. I don't like other people thinking they should be able to make decisions like this for people when it's really none of their business.

You're mistaken here.

The pro-choice side is only really arguing one thing - that a baby doesn't have any positive right to the woman's body.

It's a very clear and powerful argument because, pretty self evidently, nobody has any positive right to anyone else's body no matter the specifics of the situation. I can't demand blood from you even if I'm going to die without it. I can't demand an organ from you even if you are already dead.

Whether or not the baby is considered a "full human being" is not relevant to the above argument. Assume it is 100% a human being with full Constitutional rights, it still wouldn't mean it has a positive right to a woman's body, just like I have no right to yours.

So since a baby could possibly survivewithout a woman's bodyat the point of viability, it is really the only relatively consistent point at which to draw a line on abortion based on the above. It doesn't matter a huge deal practically since most elective abortions happen way before that, but if you are trying to establish a principle that's the way to look at it.

The problem with that argument is that it should require the doctor to try to deliver and ensure that the baby survives instead of just aborting the fetus. At 20 weeks, youmightbe able to save a couple babies with severe developmental handicaps, but what then? Do you force the mother to take care of them? Are they then the state's problem?

24 weeks is the limit in the UK, the 50% survival stage. Yes there is a grey area with viability too, but we have to draw lines legally for things, and so if you wanted to eliminate the possibility that a baby which could have survived without a woman's body would be aborted, then you would draw the line at 20 weeks.

Not really seeing how:

a baby doesn't have any positive right to the woman's body =/= I have the right over what is in my body-full stop

I mean the slogan is literally "my body, my choice"

As for the "survivability" I did say that was a viable argument line.

There are counters that I have seen argued in debate.

As for consistency. I would argue human brain activity is the consistent. As it also accounts for end of life termination rulings.

Heart beat is used to determine time of death. So that using it as a start of life is consistent.

New living human DNA is crafted at conception so that is also consistent.

They all have merits and points to be debated.

My thought is that this whole situation is messy and I don't really like it at all.

I just settled on "If it has to be done get it done early." I don't really see why you need to spending months making the call. (Excluding the medical issues thing). Where early stops is unclear.

None of that matters once science(and it already has) proven its human viable life, no different then responding to heart attack patients/car accidents, etc and not delivering life saving aid because of having a low chance of survival. Any doctor refusing to give life saving care based on survival rates would be fired and possibly go to jail, not to mention law suits.

The reason the left would hate that is because now they are forced to make the argument that they have the right to kill a viable human life inside them at any time for any reason, instead of the bullchit health of the mother false one they are currently running with...its a much harder sell to make to even pro choice people.

lol it's just funny seeing both parties become a dumpster fire

x2.