Warning: American viewpoint that might not make as much sense applied globally.
I’d go so far as to say it’s also because it is not heavily politicized either. The political right already has (human) abortion to win the emotional vote, they have no reason to go any further as those people will never change their minds on average (which is good enough to win elections)
For the record I don’t at all think abortion should be politicized, and seeing such clear pandering to emotion to win votes is so fucking tiring to see happen now, it’s tiring to read about it throughout history, and it’s tiring to know it’s going nowhere for the future.
While I don't agree with the right's view, I wish more people would take the approach of steelmanning[1] their political stance before trying to debate it. Do you really not see how someone on the right could simply accuse you of the same bad behavior as you have of them?
> For the record I don’t at all think abortion should be politicized
But put yourself in a charitable version of your opponent's shoes: they believe it's a violation of the 5th amendment, and tantamount to murder. From the GOP platform,
> the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed
While I have personally heard convincing counter-arguments to this (as I said, I don't agree with the right), I don't hear them being stated by anyone at a high level on the left. The left's repeated talking point is that women have a right to their own body; but that view ignores, I think, that it's fully possible for someone on the right to believe that, but simultaneously believe that the rights of the unborn child take precedence. I have yet to hear someone high on the left address why either they believe that the right's stance on an unborn child's right to the 5th is wrong (and thus, a woman's right prevails as it is the only thing) or why the unborn child's right to the 5th is trumped by the woman's right to her body.
> and it’s tiring to know it’s going nowhere for the future.
I sincerely think that if the left took the time to argue against the steelmanned argument from the right, we might actually make progress at convincing people, and actually moving the debate forward. But, as it is, one side is screaming "it's murder!" the other "women's right's!", neither addressing the other's position or views. How is that ever to move forward?
Yes, there are plenty of uncharitable arguments made by politicians on the right, and one can no doubt cherry-pick an endless litany of examples. But that you can I do not believe frees you from the requirement of arguing a good, solid argument for your own viewpoint. Do you really think that half the nation is doing no more than "pandering to emotion", or that perhaps some subset of them might sincerely hold a view on the issue that might differ from your own?
While I don't agree with the right, I can certainly see how anyone on that side would be left utterly unconvinced by the rhetoric being produced on the left.
> I have yet to hear someone high on the left address why either they believe that the right's stance on an unborn child's right to the 5th is wrong
The argument is that an unborn child that can't support itself outside the mother isn't a whole life yet. And if accept that it is a whole life and the mother is obligated to use her body to sustain it, why don't we apply that same argument for say mandatory organ donation? We don't even do mandatory organ harvesting on dead bodies, let alone compel living people to donate organs, due to the principle of bodily autonomy.
> I sincerely think that if the left took the time to argue against the steelmanned argument from the right,
I don't agree, since most of the right's objections are rooted in religion. You can't convince someone to abandon what they consider an article of faith using logical arguments. The right also consistently opposes government support for poor mothers (the group most likely to get abortions) and children, and sex education (reduces abortions among teenagers, the next biggest group). If they were sincere about being "pro-life" rather than just "anti-abortion", they would be strongly in support of these policies. Why bother arguing with people who don't even act in a manner consistent with their proclaimed beliefs? What argument would they accept?
I agree with you, you have two sides that believe their side is the only side. What do you do? Where do you start to break this impasse?
Look I get that I was wrong in stating my own opinion, in such a way the vilified the other side. Such behavior will not lead to compromise, so I’m happy to say I myself have no influence over politics
For a counter point, look at how child abuse was treated pre 1900 before it become politicized. It really calls into question any notion of moral objectivity when you consider what society used to consider acceptable treatment of children before someone made it into a political issue that has eventually becomes something so ingrained into our society that to not agree with it would get one condemned as a inhuman sociopath.
