Consider the contrast between these comments and the abortion debate in the US. I think the essence of the latter is a disagreement about the absolute and relative moral statuses of and rights due to fully grown humans and potential people. I expect it would continue to exist even if everyone agreed on the pertinent biological and medical facts of the matter.
I think the abortion “debate” is a Blue vs Green, Arguments as Soldiers issue. Pro- or anti-abortion doesn’t follow logically from other positions held by each party. Counterfactually, if the two US parties had chosen different positions on abortion due to some historic accident, then I would expect their electorate to still support each party along current divisions.
I think the abortion “debate” is a Blue vs Green, Arguments as Soldiers issue.
I agree. That’s why I set up my counterfactual.
Counterfactually, if the two US parties had chosen different positions on abortion due to some historic accident, then I would expect their electorate to still support each party along current divisions.
I have the contrary expectation—I can’t conceive of a historical accident that would swap the parties’ positions on abortion without also swapping their respective bases.
I think the abortion “debate” is a Blue vs Green, Arguments as Soldiers issue. Pro- or anti-abortion doesn’t follow logically from other positions held by each party. Counterfactually, if the two US parties had chosen different positions on abortion due to some historic accident, then I would expect their electorate to still support each party along current divisions.
I agree. That’s why I set up my counterfactual.
I have the contrary expectation—I can’t conceive of a historical accident that would swap the parties’ positions on abortion without also swapping their respective bases.