Some serious mic-drop moments in that one. All on Charlie’s end.
.
All of those “questions” were intended to be gotchas, and they all failed because the guy simply can’t wrap his head around the bigger picture. “Why are you only pro-life up until the point of birth? Why not after?” Simplest contextual answer: Because regardless of how you feel about whether an embryo or fetus is truly “alive” or has rights, after the baby has been born nobody credibly questions whether he/she is a “life” worthy of protecting. IOW, after birth, the baby is alive and human and has all his/her human rights, so he/she should no longer need “pro-life activists” to advocate for them.
.
But Charlie went the extra mile and patiently explained that ALL of his (and our) policies are centered around a “pro-life” stance. Ending wars, private charities and churches stepping up to directly* help those in need, more focused policing to reduce violent crime, etc. It’s more than just abortions; ALL of it is aimed at preserving and protecting life, at every stage.
.
After that, it’s more of a debate over the best way to solve the various problems, and “more government” is almost never the best way.
.
———
* – Government doesn’t do ANYTHING directly; there’s always layers and layers of bureaucracy and middle-men, and each of them skims a bit off the top of any funding or resources allocated to whatever cause it’s supposed to be fixing — even without graft, the bureaucrats and middle-men get a salary and benefits, paid by the same program … but there’s usually graft, too. That makes it an extremely inefficient use of resources. Contrariwise, local churches and non-profits, largely working with volunteers, can identify people in need, allocate resources, and provide help MUCH more quickly and efficiently, by placing real necessities into real people’s hands in real time. And do it with less overhead and opportunity for graft. Direct solutions beat bureaucracy every time.
Some serious mic-drop moments in that one. All on Charlie’s end.
.
All of those “questions” were intended to be gotchas, and they all failed because the guy simply can’t wrap his head around the bigger picture. “Why are you only pro-life up until the point of birth? Why not after?” Simplest contextual answer: Because regardless of how you feel about whether an embryo or fetus is truly “alive” or has rights, after the baby has been born nobody credibly questions whether he/she is a “life” worthy of protecting. IOW, after birth, the baby is alive and human and has all his/her human rights, so he/she should no longer need “pro-life activists” to advocate for them.
.
But Charlie went the extra mile and patiently explained that ALL of his (and our) policies are centered around a “pro-life” stance. Ending wars, private charities and churches stepping up to directly* help those in need, more focused policing to reduce violent crime, etc. It’s more than just abortions; ALL of it is aimed at preserving and protecting life, at every stage.
.
After that, it’s more of a debate over the best way to solve the various problems, and “more government” is almost never the best way.
.
———
* – Government doesn’t do ANYTHING directly; there’s always layers and layers of bureaucracy and middle-men, and each of them skims a bit off the top of any funding or resources allocated to whatever cause it’s supposed to be fixing — even without graft, the bureaucrats and middle-men get a salary and benefits, paid by the same program … but there’s usually graft, too. That makes it an extremely inefficient use of resources. Contrariwise, local churches and non-profits, largely working with volunteers, can identify people in need, allocate resources, and provide help MUCH more quickly and efficiently, by placing real necessities into real people’s hands in real time. And do it with less overhead and opportunity for graft. Direct solutions beat bureaucracy every time.