Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jonas's avatar

I think that this is not totally unrealistic. Pro-lifers may not be the majority, yet, but they are not a small fringe minority in the US. Plus, American pro-lifers seemed to be laser-focused, before, on reversing Roe-vs-Wade. I think, now that Roe-vs-Wade is overturned, they can shift their focus on changing minds and changing laws. I think the Democrats are gonna try to "codify Roe-vs-Wade", legalizing abortion, nationwide.

This will force pro-lifers to focus on banning abortion nationwide. Just change a few more minds and it is within reach.

Michael isn't even betting on a complete abortion ban, given that he specified surgical abortion only. Most abortions are done by pill in the US and abortions can be used up to approx 8 weeks, plenty of time to notice a missed period. This might be seen as a reasonable compromise by some very moderate "pro-choicers". Many pro-lifers might begrudgingly accept it as a temporary compromise given that it is relatively difficult to enforce a ban on abortion pills vs a ban on surgical abortion.

He is not even betting that the ban would last. Just that surgical abortions will be banned on June 1, 2034. Perhaps it will yo-yo back-and-forth and it will be re-legalized in 2036. Michael would still win the bet, in that case.

Expand full comment
forumposter123@protonmail.com's avatar

1) I think you are going to lose, but I appreciate taking the pro-life position.

2) A assume that by using 50 states you are excluding DC.

Expand full comment
30 more comments...