I think we mostly agree as well. If we’re going to split hairs, I’d say that it’s sound to claim that life begins at fertilization, but pregnancy begins at implantation. Claiming that pregnancy begins at fertilization (i.e. pre-implantation), is weaker, imo. Even that may be tenable, I suppose.
Nevertheless, I don’t actually care about any of that, because I feel that one’s rights over one’s body should be more or less absolute.
I probably should also add that if one is discussing these things in a legal context (i.e., whether something runs afoul of anti-abortion statutes) then these definitions are actually important, but they will come down to what some judge somewhere decides which may or may not be dictated by logic and science.
I haven’t really thought about this in depth before, but IF this actually happens, they’re going to face a Sophie’s Choice. They can continue down the road they’re on and get absolutely smoked on the abortion issue ~forever, or they can moderate on the issue and lose the vote of a decent chunk of the Christian right.
Either way, they’d be totally screwed and they’d need to shift other key positions in order to be a competitive national party.
If it pans out that way, and it’s a fairly big if which will be known this November, they’d be the dog that caught the car.
This is always such a self-own for republicans. On no! Free healthcare! What will we ever do? Free healthcare is the end of society as we know it. Way better to make sure we bankrupt a certain percentage of people ever year!
Nah, they’ll just go hard in the paint on abortion and just cheat/gerrymander the elections. They can have their cake and eat it too. It’s easy when you can win most of the power with a minority of the votes.
