Instigator / Pro
lacr3000's avatar
14
lacr3000
1500
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#5862

Abortion should not have been a major issue for any voter in the 2024 Presidential Election

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
3
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

lacr3000
Tags
Politics
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
KMA0017's avatar
11
KMA0017
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description

One of the main issues for voters in the 2024 election was abortion. It was a major part of Kamala Harris's campaign, and I knew many people personally who were voting purely based on their abortion stance. I believe the issue of abortion should not have changed a person's presidential vote in the election.

Note: This is my first attempt to use this platform, so please let me know if I've set up the debate incorrectly, or anything else of that sort

Round 1
lacr3000's avatar
lacr3000
Pro
#1
The basis of my argument is very simple and lies in legislative practicality. Abortion is currently decided on the state level, and it is highly improbable that either candidate would have been able to push through any federal legislation on the issue. Let's look at both of the candidates, and their potential effects on abortion legislation.

Donald Trump:

According to his last two presidential debates, Trump is in favor of "in the exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother", but would like the issue to remain at the state level, where individual states can have different abortion laws (Biden-Trump debate...). He also states on various occasions that he would not support a federal abortion ban, most notably in his debate against Vice President Harris, saying "and as far as the abortion ban, no, I'm not in favor of abortion ban" (Harris-Trump presidential...). Trump repeatedly argued that issue of abortion should stay at the state level, and that he would not advocate for any national legislation. 

Essentially, outside of ballot measures in individual states, something he has no control over, (and something that typically favors liberal ideals anyways), trump did not want to see any changes to abortion laws, and he did not want to personally have an impact on abortion laws going forward. The sentiment of "women rights are on the ballot" was absolutely absurd, except when being used in reference to states with actual abortion measures on their ballots, which is not the focus of this debate.

Kamala Harris:

Kamala Harris's stance regarding abortion, as the 'issues' section of her website states is as follows "As President, she will never allow a national abortion ban to become law. And when Congress passes a bill to restore reproductive freedom nationwide, she will sign it" (A New Way...). So, in similar fashion to Trump, she vows to veto a federal abortion ban. the key difference is that she would pass national legislation, if congress passed it. The issue is a majority party would undoubtably need 60 seats in the senate to pass any kind of abortion legislation. This is a mark that has not been hit since the 95th congress (1977-1979), and it was abundantly clear that neither party would take such a large majority this election (Party Division).

Harris obviously knew this was an issue, and her approach was to eliminate the filibuster in the Senate, which is an objectively bad idea, generally and for abortion rights (Harris says she...). The negative impact of ending the filibuster is something I'd gladly discuss in another debate but given that this discussion is purely focused on abortion, I will limit the scope of my argument to that. If the filibuster was eliminated, republicans could easily pass very restrictive abortion legislation the moment they got control of congress. I'll make the assumption that nearly everyone voting for Kamal Harris (and particularly those who were voting for her because of her abortion stance), would not like to see that happen.

Conclusion: 

Simply put, without eliminating the filibuster, neither candidate would have been able to effect abortion legislation in any way as president, and as I previously state, eliminating the filibuster brings a slew of other issues into the equation that actually tend to favor an abortion band rather than an expansion of abortion rights. 






KMA0017's avatar
KMA0017
Con
#2
Legislative Practicality: A Convenient Excuse for Complacency
 
Your entire argument hinges on the notion that legislative inertia makes abortion a non-issue in presidential elections. That’s like saying, “The ship’s already sinking, so why bother steering?” The presidency isn’t just about legislation; it’s about setting the tone, appointing justices, influencing public opinion, and steering long-term outcomes. Pretending this debate starts and ends with Senate math is, frankly, adorable but naïve.
 
Trump: The Federalist Puppet Master
 
You paint Trump as a laissez-faire bystander who wouldn’t touch federal abortion legislation. Nice try, but actions speak louder than cherry-picked debate soundbites. His judicial appointments—particularly the justices who overturned Roe v. Wade—were a calculated effort to reshape abortion policy nationwide. Trump didn’t need to pass federal laws; he just handed the scalpel to the Supreme Court and said, “Have fun carving up precedent.” This wasn’t accidental. It was a deliberate strategy to influence abortion rights for decades, creating a domino effect that threw state policies into chaos. State-level control? More like state-level carnage orchestrated from the Oval Office.
 
Harris: The Filibuster Boogeyman
 
You argue Harris’s push to eliminate the filibuster would lead to restrictive abortion legislation the moment Republicans gained control. You’re ignoring a key fact: Republicans have already proven adept at bypassing the filibuster to achieve their goals, from judicial appointments to tax cuts. Meanwhile, Democrats consistently face obstacles in advancing critical protections. Harris’s proposal wasn’t reckless; it was a calculated risk to codify abortion rights federally before the pendulum swung back. Risky? Sure. But allowing the filibuster to remain untouched ensures that progressive policies stay locked in legislative purgatory while conservatives exploit every opportunity to reshape the judiciary and policy landscape. Inaction wasn’t just risky—it was a losing strategy.
 
Why Abortion Was the Issue
 
Abortion isn’t just about legislative feasibility; it’s a bellwether for broader societal values. It reflects how candidates view individual rights, bodily autonomy, and the government’s role in private decisions. For many voters, this wasn’t just a policy debate—it was existential. Telling them to “calm down, it’s just a state issue” is tone-deaf at best and dismissive at worst.
 
Your Conclusion Is Premature
 
You assume voters should’ve deprioritized abortion because legislative outcomes seemed unlikely. That’s like telling someone not to board the lifeboat because the iceberg “probably won’t sink the whole ship.” Politics isn’t about certainties—it’s about priorities. Abortion wasn’t a fringe issue; it was a litmus test for leadership, morality, and the values that guide our democracy. For millions, it symbolized something larger: the government’s willingness to recognize autonomy and uphold justice. To dismiss that is to misunderstand what drives voter engagement and societal change.
 
Sources:
https://time.com/7096575/donald-trump-abortion-plan-2024
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/supreme-court-decision-roe-v-wade-6-24-2022/card/trump-says-it-was-great-honor-to-appoint-justices-who-voted-to-overturn-roe-bG8IoHon8J4NePvvnKQc
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/24/kamala-harris-filibuster-abortion-rights-00180699?utm
https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/news/story/senate-confirmation-process-supreme-court-nominees-82656675
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/abortion-focus-harris-beyonce-trump-campaign-texas-2024-10-25/
 
Round 2
lacr3000's avatar
lacr3000
Pro
#3
Legislative Practicality:

While I agree that the presidency isn't just about legislation, I still think that the legislative inertia in the situation validates my argument. Remember, I'm not trying to say abortion is something that shouldn't have been taken into consideration when considering a presidential candidate. I'm saying that because of the inability of the future president to actually impact abortion legislation, it would be unwise to prioritize abortion over other issues like the economy, foreign affairs, border security, etc. In short, I'm not attempting to say that abortion should be an absolute non-factor when considering a candidate, just that the prevalence many voters gave the issue was unwarranted. 

Also, I would just like to acknowledge that this response is meant to serve as a response to your "Why Abortion Was the Issue" section. I'm not trying to say it isn't an issue at all, just that there are many other issues that should have taken precedence over it this election cycle.

Trump:

I believe that your reasoning is flawed regarding Trumps abortion policy. Yes, he played a major role in Roe v. Wade's overturning. While I think his role in the matter is often slightly overstated by the left, there's no denying it was a goal of his, and the overturning of Roe v. Wade was a result of his judicial appointments. The thing is, that goal was to send abortion to the states. Abortion is currently a state issue. He already made the change he intended to make, so his past effect on the abortion issue is irrelevant. Also, the wording "cherry-picked debate soundbites" doesn't make sense to me here. He's just stated his opinion on the matter, which he has been consistent about, at least through the 2024 campaign. (By that, I mean he has been consistent in no absolute ban, the 3 exceptions, and that abortion should be a state issue). By that logic, any statement made by a candidate in a debate, even if it aligns with their already existing stances, would be considered a "cherry-picked debate soundbite". I also find your description of the Roe v. Wade decision to be overstated and inaccurate, but its not necessarily relevant to this discussion.

Harris:

It's foolish to believe that only Republicans bypass the filibuster. In specific regard to judicial appointments, both parties have bypassed the filibuster for a variety of reasons, it's not a partisan issue. To your point about "legislative purgatory", I think the filibuster is important for that very reason. It might seem counterproductive to insinuate that bills should move through congress slower, but I think the filibuster is essential in ensuring that the government is a better representation of the people, which is its primary purpose. I say this because in both parties, the political polarization of social issues can make opinions on said issues (progressive or conservative) more commonplace than they are amount their constituents. Ironically, a good example of this in the republican party is abortion. Most republican lawmakers are very strict in their approach to abortion, with many supporting total bans, but the republican voter base doesn't necessarily agree, with 41% saying that abortion should be legal in all/most cases ). At the moment, the filibuster is preventing republicans from creating federal abortion legislation. As for the democratic side, democratic politicians tend to be much more left leaning on gender and transgender issues than their voters. Only 61% of democratic voters believe that a person's gender can be different than their assigned sex, while almost all democratic lawmakers do believe this. In general, I think that when it comes to legislation getting through congress, significant agreement should be required to make changes to the status quo, and the filibuster allows for that. 

*All of these statistics were pulled from PEW research studies that will be linked below. I'm also going to link a study show the breakdown of abortion opinion within the republican party. I didn't use statistics from it, but I thought it was interesting and potentially relevant for this discussion, so please feel free to look at it if you would like.

Regarding the Conclusion: 

I tend to agree with some things said in this section, I just think you draw an incorrect conclusion from it. I practice though; I viewed abortion in this election cycle in a remotely similar way to what you described here. It seems to me our differences lie in what we find more important in the candidates. To use myself as an example, I am much more in favor of Kamala's personal views on abortion, as I'm pro-choice (up to 22 weeks but my personal views are an entirely different subject that isn't relevant here). With that being said, I don't think that the issue is the great gauge for leadership or morality, or even values for that matter. As far as leadership goes, I'd argue that foreign policy and domestic affairs are much more prevalent and accurate representations of the leadership qualities of a candidate. To your point about morality, I've spoken to people with many varying views on the abortion debate, and I would say that with the exception on a few extremes on both sides, there are reasonable moral arguments for most all abortion stances, and I could reiterate that exact same reasoning for the values in this case. I agree that the abortion issue "drives voter engagement", that much is obvious purely by the prevalence of the talking point, my case is that people shouldn't have been driven to vote by it this time around. (In a personal sense, this is not a criticism of the use of the abortion argument as an effective campaign strategy).

Sources: 


KMA0017's avatar
KMA0017
Con
#4
Legislative Practicality: A Convenient Fiction
 
You’re walking a tightrope here, acknowledging abortion as an issue while downplaying its importance compared to topics like the economy or foreign affairs. The flaw in your argument is clear: the personal stakes of abortion far outweigh abstract macroeconomic concerns for millions of voters. This isn’t about dismissing inflation or foreign policy but recognizing that abortion directly impacts people’s bodies, rights, and futures. Asking voters to deprioritize that for broader concerns isn’t practicality—it’s prioritization bias dressed up as objectivity.
 
And about legislative inertia: voters aren’t just focused on what will happen; they care deeply about what could happen. Since the Dobbs decision, 14 states have enacted full abortion bans, and others have implemented significant restrictions. This patchwork of rights demonstrates that abortion is a live issue, not a theoretical one. Voters understand that the wrong president can exacerbate these trends or appoint justices who entrench them further. Claiming legislative inertia is a defense of inaction reflects a failure to grasp the stakes and urgency of the issue.
 
Trump: The Great Pretender
 
You claim Trump’s role in overturning Roe v. Wade is overstated. That’s rich. He appointed three Supreme Court justices with Federalist Society-approved résumés designed to dismantle abortion rights. Saying, “Well, he only wanted to send it to the states” is like saying an arsonist only wanted to start a little fire. Trump’s fingerprints are all over the national abortion debate, and pretending he washed his hands of it post-Dobbs is disingenuous.
 
As for the “cherry-picked soundbites” comment: Trump’s debate statements are irrelevant when his actions—you know, appointing justices to overturn abortion rights—paint a clearer picture of his intent. Words are cheap; legacies are expensive. His legacy is the dismantling of federal abortion protections, whether he verbally endorsed a nationwide ban or not.
 
Harris: Filibuster Fantasies and False Equivalencies
 
Your defense of the filibuster is precious. It’s the legislative equivalent of a participation trophy: mostly useless, occasionally decorative, but great for making people feel like they’re doing something meaningful. You argue that it ensures “better representation of the people,” but let’s not kid ourselves—it’s been used more to protect gridlock than democracy. By your logic, civil rights, Medicare, or even women’s suffrage should’ve waited for bipartisan kumbaya sessions. Spoiler alert: progress rarely asks permission.
 
And let’s not pretend Harris’s push to eliminate the filibuster was some reckless fantasy. It was a calculated response to decades of conservatives gaming the system to dismantle rights. Remember 2017, when McConnell nuked the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees? That little maneuver gave us a court stacked with justices who promptly overturned Roe. Harris’s plan wasn’t radical; it was survival. The filibuster isn’t a beacon of balance—it’s a rusty shield conservatives have used to block progress while their own agenda rolls through unscathed.
 
Morality, Leadership, and the Voter’s Lens
 
You argue that foreign policy and domestic affairs are better gauges of leadership than abortion. That’s cute, but it ignores the obvious: the ability to navigate deeply divisive issues is a test of leadership. Abortion isn’t just a policy debate; it’s a moral battleground, and how a candidate approaches it speaks volumes about their values, priorities, and willingness to fight for individual rights.
 
As for morality, your “reasonable moral arguments on all sides” comment is a nice attempt to sidestep the real issue: one side supports autonomy, while the other increasingly legislates control. Equating the two might sound fair, but it’s just intellectual fence-sitting. People voted on abortion because it is a moral issue, and dismissing their choice as misguided or overblown reeks of condescension.
 
The Conclusion: Missing the Point
 
You say voters shouldn’t have been driven to the polls by abortion, but that’s not your call to make. People vote based on what matters most to them, and for many, abortion rights aren’t just a campaign talking point—they’re a matter of survival, autonomy, and basic human dignity. Your attempt to relegate it to the background of this election ignores the reality that rights eroded today are rights lost for generations.
 
Final Thought:
 
Your argument reads like someone trying to downplay the fire in their neighbor’s house because their own lawn needs mowing. Just because you don’t see abortion as a pressing issue doesn’t mean others should follow suit. The stakes are too high, the consequences too immediate, and the historical context too clear. You’re welcome to value inflation or border security more, but don’t expect everyone else to let their rights fall by the wayside for the sake of your priorities.
 
Sources:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/abortion-rights-map-supreme-court-dobbs-roe-v-wade
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/senate-neil-gorsuch-nuclear-option-236937
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2021/02/02/five_facts_on_the_filibuster_658731.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2024/06/how-pro-life-lost-all-meaning/678784/
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-abortion-bans-deaths-agonies.html
 
Round 3
lacr3000's avatar
lacr3000
Pro
#5
Legislative Practicality: 

It seems like you might be misinterpreting my argument, or at least this section makes it seem that way. I'm aware that "the personal stakes of abortion far outweigh abstract macroeconomic concerns for millions of voters". I'm saying that applying that line of thinking to the presidential race is impractical because of the previously discussed lack of legislative actuality. If your argument is to say that the aforementioned statement was correct, I would argue that the focus of a voter should be on what the candidate will actually get done, and not about just one personal belief. Don't get me wrong, it's great to vote for a candidate that holds the same values as you, I just think that in this election abortion was not an issue that would see change from either of the candidates, so while it is something to consider, it should not be a person's top issue.

This isn’t about dismissing inflation or foreign policy but recognizing that abortion directly impacts people’s bodies, rights, and futures. Asking voters to deprioritize that for broader concerns isn’t practicality—it’s prioritization bias dressed up as objectivity.
I would argue that essentially all mainline political issues impact people's bodies, rights, and futures. In my opinion, it's objectively dismissive to prioritize abortion over inflation or foreign policy when the latter are issues that the future president will actually effect, and the former is an issue that the president will legislatively have no impact on. 

And about legislative inertia: voters aren’t just focused on what will happen; they care deeply about what could happen.
This plays directly into my argument. Voters are worried about what 'could happen', the thing is, nothing 'could happen' legislatively. If the argument is that voters should prioritize the potential of a president 'exacerbat[ing] these trends' over the realistic effects that president may have, that's exactly what I'm refuting. The actual legislative impact of the president is far more important.

Trump: 

To clarify, when I say I think Trumps role in overturning Roe v. Wade is "slightly overstated" I mean i think it's a little bit (and I actually mean a little bit) disingenuous to act like he strolled in an took the axe to the precedent himself. He rather handed axes to people whom he was fairly certain would take an axe to the precedent. I felt like I was pretty clear in my argument in acknowledging that he was a major player, perhaps even the major player, in overturning Roe v. Wade. With that being said, I have to disagree with you on the arsonist analogy, but I don't want to get too far off topic as this debate is purely focused on the issue in relation to the election. (If you'd like we could discuss it in another debate or forum post). 

Trump’s debate statements are irrelevant when his actions—you know, appointing justices to overturn abortion rights—paint a clearer picture of his intent.

I agree with this statement for the most part, however I would argue that him appointing those justices paints the picture that he wanted abortion returned to the states- which it is now. I understand that you view that as an attack on abortion rights, but regardless of your personal feelings on the matter, it doesn't mean he would take further action. To flip the scenario, if a democratic politician were to successfully federally mandate that abortion was legal through 28 weeks, it would automatically mean that said democratic politician wanted to increase that limit and allow abortions through the 3rd trimester. Just because Trump took a stance that enabled some red staters to enact total bans (it also enabled some blue and purple states to be more liberal about the matter but nonetheless) does not mean that he is in favor of further limiting abortion.

Harris: 
By your logic, civil rights, Medicare, or even women’s suffrage should’ve waited for bipartisan kumbaya sessions
This is perhaps the most entertaining claim you've made through this entire debate, because every single one of those issues passed without bypassing the filibuster. 

Social Security Amendments of 1965:
In Favor: 68
Against: 21
Not Voting: 11
19th Amendment: *96 total senators
In Favor: 56
Against: 25
Not Voting: 15

The only one of these issues that did face the filibuster was the civil rights act, but it's important to recognize the difference between the filibuster now, and the filibuster then. In 1975, the filibuster was altered to simply be a 60-vote threshold in the senate, meaning that as long as you have 60 votes, you can pass legislation with the risk of a filibuster. Before 1975, there was essential no limit on a filibuster, meaning racists in the senate could filibuster almost infinitely. The filibuster was ended because of a cloture vote with 71 in favor and 29 against, forcing a vote. 

With that being said: 
Civil Rights Act of 1964: 
In Favor: 73
Against: 27

So, just to be clear, the "bipartisan kumbaya sessions" that you mentioned very much did happen, and that's the reason those laws were passed. So, in regard to your statement "progress rarely asks permission" I would argue that in the current system of government we have in the United States, progress frequently does ask for permission and gets "permission" when a solid majority of the legislative body supports such progress. 

Also, to be entirely clear, with the filibuster laws we have today, the civil rights act would have never gone to a filibuster, it would have just passed immediately. 


And let’s not pretend Harris’s push to eliminate the filibuster was some reckless fantasy. It was a calculated response to decades of conservatives gaming the system to dismantle rights. 
Now to get to this point. I understand that other people have attempted to dismantle the filibuster, but that doesn't mean it's right. People other than Kamala Harris supporting political maneuvers like this doesn't make it any better.

Also, can you describe further what you mean by "gaming the system"?



Remember 2017, when McConnell nuked the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees? - it’s a rusty shield conservatives have used to block progress while their own agenda rolls through unscathed.
Yes, I remember very clearly. I actually linked an article about that exact instance in my previous argument. It's the 5th link down on the list. I also provided a link to an example of democrats doing a very similar thing during Obama's term in regard to the filibuster and supreme court nominations, along with 2 other examples (one from each party), of instances where the filibuster was bypassed. I understand that defending the filibuster might seem a bit silly when it's getting bypassed frequently, but I would rather have a flimsy shield protecting me from an incoming arrow then stand straight with my arms extended outward as the arrow pummels into my chest.  

Morality, Leadership, and the Voter’s Lens
the ability to navigate deeply divisive issues is a test of leadership
Agreed, never said it wasn't. Abortion very much falls under that domestic affairs category. The point is that putting abortion alone on a pedestal above not only foreign affairs but all other domestic affairs as a gauge of leadership in impractical.

As for morality, your “reasonable moral arguments on all sides” comment is a nice attempt to sidestep the real issue
I disagree. I think not acknowledging that there are objectively moral answers to the abortion question on both sides speaks to your inability to look at the issue objectively. I was refuting part of this point:

 it was a litmus test for leadership, morality, and the values that guide our democracy
Unless you are incorrectly using the term litmus test incorrectly, you are insinuating that a person who is pro-life is immoral, which I vehemently disagree with.

People voted on abortion because it is a moral issue, and dismissing their choice as misguided or overblown reeks of condescension.
Condescension is a strong word to use in this scenario, but I don't think there's anything wrong with saying voting based on presumed morality rather than actual effect is short sighted.

The Conclusion: Missing the Point

I'm reusing this missing the point title because you are continually missing my point. Obviously, it's not my decision what drives people to the polls. I'm saying that going to the polls for that reason is short sighted. Viewing my argument that way requires some serious mental gymnastics. If I'm making a case as to why people should have written in Kayne West for the 2024 election, saying "well you don't control who people vote for" wouldn't be a proper rebuttal.
rights eroded today are rights lost for generations - don’t expect everyone else to let their rights fall by the wayside for the sake of your priorities.
The thing is the rights wouldn't be eroded; that's something I've made very clear.
Final Thought:
Your argument reads like someone trying to downplay the fire in their neighbor’s house because their own lawn needs mowing.
This analogy is flawed. A more proper example would be my neighbor blaming me for not putting out the fire at their house, when I don't have a hose or water. The person in your analogy has the ability to help their neighbor, the president doesn't reasonably have the ability to change abortion legislation
 The stakes are too high, the consequences too immediate
I think I've concocted a very convincing argument as to why the consequences are in fact, not immediate, or even existent at all

My point is, the reasoning for abortion being a person's main issue in the presidential election is flawed, not that I have control over how they vote or why they vote that way.

Sources:
KMA0017's avatar
KMA0017
Con
#6
Legislative Practicality: Stop Moving the Goalposts
 
Your attempt to clarify doesn’t actually salvage the point. You say voters should focus on what a candidate will accomplish, rather than one personal belief like abortion. But here’s the rub: the president wields significant indirect power over abortion policy, even without signing federal legislation. Appointing judges, issuing executive orders, and directing federal agencies all shape the landscape. You can’t hand-wave away these tools as irrelevant.
 
You also argue that abortion “shouldn’t be a person’s top issue” because the president’s legislative impact on it is minimal. This reeks of prescriptive arrogance—who are you to dictate what voters should prioritize? Voters aren’t monoliths, and their priorities aren’t required to align with your metrics of practicality. For many, the erosion of abortion rights wasn’t hypothetical; it was already happening. Saying it “shouldn’t” matter is as tone-deaf as suggesting climate change doesn’t deserve attention because the president can’t fix it overnight.
 
Trump: The Arsonist Who Delegated the Match
 
Trump wasn’t just a passive observer handing out axes—he was the architect of a judicial strategy designed to dismantle Roe v. Wade. His appointments of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett weren’t coincidental—they were deliberate moves to create a conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court. The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which overturned Roe, was a direct result of this strategy.
 
The ripple effects of Dobbs aren’t hypothetical—they’re already here. States rushed to enact restrictive abortion laws, with several outright banning abortion. Suggesting that Trump “wouldn’t take further action” ignores the fundamental nature of power: it consolidates and builds momentum. Trump’s actions didn’t stop with Dobbs; they set a legal precedent and enabled state-level bans that have already stripped millions of their reproductive rights. Pretending his influence ended with appointing justices is naive; it misunderstands how judicial decisions shape policy for generations.
 
Comparing Trump’s role to a getaway driver might feel dismissive, but it’s not inaccurate. He didn’t swing the axe himself—he handed it to people he knew would. This wasn’t incidental; it was a calculated move to redefine abortion rights in America. Judicial appointments aren’t a passive act—they’re deliberate, strategic tools of governance.
 
Harris and the Filibuster: Revisionist History Much?
 
Your attempt to paint the filibuster as a noble protector of consensus is… quaint. You argue that civil rights, Medicare, and women’s suffrage were passed with bipartisan support, but conveniently ignore that the filibuster has historically been used as a weapon to block progress. The 1964 Civil Rights Act may have eventually passed cloture, but only after years of obstruction and legislative maneuvering. Let’s not rewrite history to make the filibuster look like a beacon of democratic harmony.
 
Your argument that today’s filibuster would have made the Civil Rights Act unnecessary to filibuster is absurdly reductive. You’re ignoring the way political polarization has evolved. The filibuster wasn’t born out of good-faith debate; it’s a tool for the minority to hold the majority hostage. Harris’s willingness to challenge it wasn’t reckless—it was pragmatic in an era where legislative gridlock is the norm.
 
And you asked what I mean by “gaming the system”? Simple: using procedural tools like the filibuster to block majority-supported initiatives while stacking the judiciary and gerrymandering districts to entrench minority rule. It’s not clever—it’s cynical.
 
Morality and Leadership: The Litmus Test Is Valid
 
Abortion isn’t just another political issue—it’s a moral and deeply personal one that speaks directly to autonomy, gender equity, and the role of government in private lives. A candidate’s stance on abortion reflects their broader values, priorities, and leadership qualities. For voters, abortion isn’t about abstract policy; it’s about control over their bodies and their futures.
 
Dismissing abortion as an impractical voting priority undermines the stakes. The Dobbs decision created a fractured landscape where reproductive rights depend entirely on geography. For millions, this isn’t hypothetical—it’s a life-altering reality. Suggesting that voters shouldn’t prioritize abortion because a president has “limited legislative power” ignores the president’s very real influence through judicial appointments, executive orders, and federal agency directives.
 
Voters didn’t prioritize abortion because they’re emotional or misguided; they did it because the stakes are immediate, personal, and irrevocable. To dismiss their motivations as shortsighted is to ignore the urgency of their concerns. Presidents shape policy far beyond legislation, and abortion is no exception.

The Conclusion:
 
Your Voters may not have expected the president to personally hose down the fire, but they sure expected him to pick better arsonists for the judiciary. Trump’s judicial appointments weren’t abstract—they were gasoline on an already smoldering blaze.
 
Your argument boils down to dismissing abortion as a misguided priority because legislative power isn’t directly in the president’s hands. That’s not just wrong; it’s laughably simplistic. Presidents shape rights and policies through judicial appointments, executive orders, and sheer force of political messaging. Ignoring that is like ignoring the puppeteer because you’re too busy yelling at the puppet.
 
People didn’t vote on abortion out of ignorance—they voted because the stakes were personal, immediate, and devastatingly clear. Telling them they should’ve cared about something else? That’s not strategy; it’s arrogance.
 
Progress doesn’t ask for your blessing, and voters won’t wait for your approval. If you’re upset about their priorities, maybe the problem isn’t them—it’s your inability to see what’s burning right in front of you.
 
Sources:
 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/07/08/fact-sheet-president-biden-to-sign-executive-order-protecting-access-to-reproductive-health-care-services/
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/supreme-court-decision-roe-v-wade-6-24-2022/card/trump-says-it-was-great-honor-to-appoint-justices-who-voted-to-overturn-roe-bG8IoHon8J4NePvvnKQc
https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/filibusters-cloture/overview.htm
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/social-and-moral-considerations-on-abortion/
 
Round 4
lacr3000's avatar
lacr3000
Pro
#7
1. Legislative Practicality: I Never Moved the Goalposts?
In response to your title, I would just like to clarify that I never "moved the goalposts". My position, from the moment I posted this debate, was that Abortion shouldn't have been a top issue, not that it wasn't and issue to consider whatsoever, as shown by the terminology "major issue", and "deciding factor". For example, if a person agreed with trumps border policies, economic policies, and foreign affairs, but agreed with Harris on abortion (I understand that's a rare example), that shouldn't have swayed their vote to Harris

a. Realistic Effect
You say voters should focus on what a candidate will accomplish, rather than one personal belief like abortion. But here’s the rub: the president wields significant indirect power over abortion policy, even without signing federal legislation. Appointing judges, issuing executive orders, and directing federal agencies all shape the landscape.
Obviously, the president has a small, indirect effect on abortion policy even if they do not write legislation, however the means with you have mentioned are quite irrelevant in this case. In regard to the federal agencies, while there are federal agencies that do monitor abortion are restricted to the confides of the law in each state. Without legislative action, which we both agree is almost impossible, the president does not significantly move the needle on abortion. As far as the court justices go, the issue is much larger than simply abortion. The only two judges who might step down during Trumps term are Clarence and Alito, although it's quite unlikely, as they are both at least half a decade under the average retirement age. If they do step down, they will simply be replaced by younger republican judges, which would likely push the needle on abortion to a more liberal point. However, the question of supreme court justices is a much larger one than just abortion, and generally, the court nominations issue is one of partisanship, not simply abortion. 

*I have pulled these quotes from the Morality and Leadership section, and The Conclusion section, as I feel they are more applicable here 

they did it because the stakes are immediate, personal, and irrevocable
they voted because the stakes were personal, immediate, and devastatingly clear
I refuted this point in my last argument but ill expand on it here. We both agree that legislative changes would not have been made by the incumbent president, regardless of which candidate it happened to be.  The stakes are not "immediate". The stakes are also clearly not "irrevocable", as abortion legislation has been altered continuously throughout history. If the legislative impact was irrevocable, we wouldn't be having a conversation about abortion legislation at all.

b. Logical Fallacies
These statements: 
who are you to dictate what voters should prioritize?
Progress doesn’t ask for your blessing, and voters won’t wait for your approval.
Along with the other similar arguments saying I am in no place to "dictate" the priorities of voters are a clear example of ad hominem. Rather than addressing the substance of my argument, this is an attack on my ability to express this viewpoint at all, which is irrelevant to the actual debate. The focus should be assessing the quality of the argument, not dismissing it based on my ability to personally influence voters. 
Saying it “shouldn’t” matter is as tone-deaf as suggesting climate change doesn’t deserve attention because the president can’t fix it overnight.
This is yet another false analogy. The president most certainly has the ability to impact climate change through executive actions, regulations, and national agreements. As we already discussed, these options are invalid for the president in the case of abortion.

2. Trump: 

a. Supreme Court Nominations
Comparing Trump’s role to a getaway driver might feel dismissive, but it’s not inaccurate. He didn’t swing the axe himself—he handed it to people he knew would.
I agree with you on this point, and it's actually a point I made myself in my last argument. Just as a reminder, this is what I said in that argument:
He rather handed axes to people whom he was fairly certain would take an axe to the precedent. I felt like I was pretty clear in my argument in acknowledging that he was a major player, perhaps even the major player, in overturning Roe v. Wade.
Don't see where we are in disagreement here. 

b. Donald Trump's Future Impact 

Nothing in your statement about Trump's future impact on abortion gives any reasons that he would directly impact abortion legislation future. He has already reached his goal. Why would he attempt to make more restrictive laws that he doesn't agree with? A marathon runner doesn't continue to run an extra mile after they've reached the finish line.

*I have pulled this quote from The Conclusion section, as I feel it is more applicable here 

Your Voters may not have expected the president to personally hose down the fire, but they sure expected him to pick better arsonists for the judiciary. Trump’s judicial appointments weren’t abstract—they were gasoline on an already smoldering blaze.
This quote also applies to my point above

 3. Harris: 

a. Historical/Current Context of the Filibuster 

The 1964 Civil Rights Act may have eventually passed cloture, but only after years of obstruction and legislative maneuvering. 
The filibuster only lasted for 60 working days in the senate. 
 it’s a tool for the minority to hold the majority hostage
I think this statement is short sighted. I'm assuming at this point that you agree with me to an extent on my pro-choice stance. The republicans are the incoming majority. Would you like them to torch the filibuster, and pass restrictive abortion laws? It's a two-way street.

b. Partisan Bias 

You seem to view the democratic party as a virtuous actor incapable of engaging in the same cynical tactics, but that simply isn't the truth. Both parties, (as I previously showed in my sources), have "us[ed] procedural tools like the filibuster to block majority-supported initiatives", especially in regard to judicial appointments. Also, both parties gerrymander. It's definitely an issue, don't get me wrong, but you are giving the democratic party too much credit when they engage in the same cynical tactics that republicans do.

4. Morality and Leadership 

a. The Litmus Test
A candidate’s stance on abortion reflects their broader values, priorities, and leadership qualities
This statement is true; however, it does not validate your use of the litmus test. In case we are looking at the litmus test differently, the Britannica dictionary definition of the test is as follows: "something (such as an opinion about a political or moral issue) that is used to make a judgment about whether someone or something is acceptable". Abortion isn't a good litmus test for the moral qualities of a candidate, because there are moral stances to take on either side, it isn't a black and white issue.

b. "Undermining the Stakes"
Dismissing abortion as an impractical voting priority undermines the stakes. The Dobbs decision created a fractured landscape where reproductive rights depend entirely on geography. For millions, this isn’t hypothetical—it’s a life-altering reality.
This point is entirely correct, but it doesn't prove anything about the 2024 election. In 2016, abortion could have been top priority for voters, because of the possibility of new supreme court judges overturning Roe. However, that doesn't make it a good top priority in the 2024 election. The precedent was already overturned, the supreme court would not be in a position to reinstate the precedent regardless of which presidential candidate took power, and as we already discussed, there isn't any reasonable legislative way for the president to affect abortion policy. 

5. Conclusion: 
I feel like we are presenting the same arguments in many of these sections, so I would like to clarify my key points: 

a. Issue Prioritization 
My view on issue prioritization is as follows (in reference to the presidential election). A voter should view candidates through the lens of what actions they will actually take during their presidency. It's great to have a candidate that you also agree with on non-consequential issues (and by that, I mean issues that the candidate will not be able to effect through any actual action during their term), however those issues should not take priority over issues that the candidates will have an actual impact on. 

b. Argument Clarification 
I would just like to make it as clear as possible that this argument is not one in favor of Trump or Harris, and the logic could be applied either way. While it does lend itself better to Harris, as many more people were voting for her based on her abortion stance, that doesn't mean I'm attempting to make an argument for Trump here. I would argue that either way, abortion shouldn't have been a deciding factor, meaning this argument could also be applied to an individual who voted for Trump because of his stricter abortion stance. 

Sources: 

KMA0017's avatar
KMA0017
Con
#8

1. Legislative Practicality
 
“I Never Moved the Goalposts”
Your claim is that abortion shouldn’t have been a top issue, not that it wasn’t an issue at all. Fine. But for many voters, abortion wasn’t just an issue—it was the issue. Your hypothetical voter weighing economic policy against abortion fails to capture the reality that, for many, abortion rights are inseparable from economic and social justice. You can’t compartmentalize issues that are intrinsically linked.
 
“Realistic Effect”
Claiming the president’s influence is “irrelevant” because federal agencies and court appointments can’t directly move the needle is laughably shortsighted. Dobbs wasn’t some random lightning strike; it was decades of judicial strategy coming to fruition. You’re pretending the puppeteer has no responsibility for the strings.
 
And your argument about Alito and Thomas likely staying on the bench? That’s a bet, not an argument. Voters don’t gamble on “probably won’t retire” when fundamental rights are at stake. The court’s ideological balance can shift overnight, and voters know it. Ignoring this reality isn’t pragmatic—it’s reckless.
 
“Logical Fallacies”
Oh, the irony. You accuse me of ad hominem attacks for pointing out that voters don’t need your blessing to prioritize abortion. That’s not ad hominem; that’s democracy. Critiquing your attempt to dictate voter priorities isn’t attacking you—it’s dismantling your argument’s presumptuous tone.
 
Your climate change analogy rebuttal also misses the mark. Yes, presidents can directly impact climate policy more than abortion, but that doesn’t negate the larger point: voters prioritize issues based on personal stakes, not just legislative feasibility. Calling that “impractical” is condescending, not convincing.
 
2. Trump:
 
“Supreme Court Nominations”
We agree that Trump’s judicial appointments played a pivotal role in overturning Roe. Where we differ is your insistence that this means he’s “done.” Power isn’t a finish line. Trump’s appointees didn’t just reshape abortion policy; they laid the groundwork for further restrictions. Pretending his involvement ended with Dobbs is naive. He didn’t stop running the race; he just changed the course.
 
“Donald Trump’s Future Impact”
You claim Trump has no reason to push for stricter abortion laws because he’s already achieved his goal. Really? Trump’s political playbook thrives on energizing his base, and abortion remains a galvanizing issue. Even if he personally doesn’t care to push further restrictions, his judicial and legislative enablers certainly do. To assume otherwise is to ignore his well-documented pattern of leveraging issues for personal and political gain.
 
3. Harris:
 
“Historical/Current Context of the Filibuster”
Your defense of the filibuster as a “two-way street” ignores its modern function as a weapon of obstruction. Sure, the Civil Rights Act faced 60 working days of filibuster, but that was a different political climate. Today, the filibuster is a partisan cudgel, blocking even modest reforms.
 
Torching the filibuster wouldn’t open the floodgates for restrictive abortion laws—that ship has already sailed at the state level. The filibuster isn’t protecting abortion rights; it’s preserving a status quo where progress is perpetually stalled. Harris’s willingness to challenge it wasn’t reckless; it was pragmatic.
 
“Partisan Bias”
Ah, the old “both sides” argument. Yes, both parties have used procedural tools like the filibuster and gerrymandering. But equating those actions ignores the scale and intent. Democrats aren’t gerrymandering and stacking courts to erode fundamental rights—they’re trying to preserve them. Your false equivalence isn’t just cynical; it’s lazy.
 
4. Morality and Leadership: The Litmus Test Isn’t Just Black and White
 
“The Litmus Test”
You argue that abortion isn’t a good litmus test because it isn’t a “black and white issue.” Wrong. The litmus test isn’t about moral absolutism; it’s about priorities. A candidate’s stance on abortion reflects their values on autonomy, equity, and the role of government. Voters aren’t looking for binary morality; they’re looking for alignment on fundamental principles.
 
“Undermining the Stakes”
Your argument that Dobbs was relevant in 2016 but not in 2024 is politically shortsighted. Overturning Roe wasn’t the end; it was the beginning of a state-by-state assault on reproductive rights. Voters in 2024 weren’t responding to hypotheticals—they were reacting to real, life-altering consequences. Calling their concerns “shortsighted” is the real intellectual blind spot here.
 
5. The Conclusion:
 
“Issue Prioritization”
You reduce voter priorities to a simplistic checklist of “actionable” versus “non-actionable” issues. That’s not how democracy works. Abortion policy is actionable—not through legislation, but through judicial appointments, funding priorities, and executive orders. Dismissing it as “non-consequential” ignores how presidents shape the broader landscape of rights.
 
“Argument Clarification”
Your attempt to frame this argument as neutral—applying to both Trump and Harris—falls flat. If you genuinely believe abortion shouldn’t have been a deciding factor, you’re ignoring that voters don’t compartmentalize issues. Abortion rights intersect with economics, healthcare, and civil liberties. Asking voters to deprioritize one issue is asking them to ignore how interconnected all issues are.
 
Final Diagnosis:
 
Your case boils down to this: voters should only prioritize issues where the president has direct legislative power. That premise is not just flawed—it’s reductive. Presidential influence extends far beyond legislation, and voters understand this better than you give them credit for.
 
In short: you’re prescribing how voters should think while ignoring how democracy actually functions. Voters aren’t theoretical constructs—they’re real people prioritizing issues that impact their lives. Trying to dismiss their decisions as impractical doesn’t make you insightful—it just makes you wrong.
 
Progress doesn’t ask for permission. And neither do voters.
 
Sources:
 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/08/03/executive-order-on-securing-access-to-reproductive-and-other-healthcare-services/
 
https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/jun/21/the-abortion-laws-passed-by-states-since-the-dobbs/
 
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/60-days-after-dobbs-state-legal-developments-abortion
 
https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/what-donald-trump-s-2024-victory-means-for-abortion-rights-in-america-124110601581_1.html
 
https://www.vox.com/abortion/373133/kamala-harris-oprah-winfrey-michigan-amber-thurman-abortion-bans-democrats
 
Round 5
lacr3000's avatar
lacr3000
Pro
#9
First, I would like to thank KMA0017 for this debate. You have brought forward thoughtful and compassionate arguments throughout this debate, and it was an incredibly engaging discussion throughout. 

Secondly, I would like to address the judges, or anyone who is simply reading through this debate. As I mentioned in the discussion, this is my first debate on this platform. If there are any immediate changes I should make to my debate structure/style that are needed to improve the evaluability of my debates, or just any general tips, please let me know in your vote, or directly. 

I would like to end this debate by reiterating my primary views, and my rebuttals to my opponent's arguments. 

1. Legislative Practicality:

Con and I agree that the incumbent president will essentially have no impact on the issue of abortion legislatively. The primary differences between are arguments is that I believe that this fact inherently deprioritizes abortion in regard to the presidential election. Voters should be thinking about the actual impact of a candidate, rather than prioritizing issues that the president will have no legislative power over.  

a. The Filibuster

I believe the filibuster is an essential part of lawmaking, and I think my opponent showed a lack of understanding of the role of the filibuster, and its historical context throughout the debate. 

"Republicans have already proven adept at bypassing the filibuster to achieve their goals "
Con repeatedly insinuated that the act of bypassing the filibuster was a uniquely republican one, despite the objective fact that both parties have bypassed the filibuster, as represented by my sources in Pro #3.


 By your logic, civil rights, Medicare, or even women’s suffrage should’ve waited for bipartisan kumbaya sessions. Spoiler alert: progress rarely asks permission.
I go over this argument in depth in Pro #5 - Harris, but in short, con appears to believe that all legislative progress in the past was made in spite of the filibuster, despite the fact that all of the aforementioned social advances were made with the filibuster in place.

 The 1964 Civil Rights Act may have eventually passed cloture, but only after years of obstruction and legislative maneuvering.
In this case, my opponent is factually incorrect on the length of delay caused by the filibuster 

Your argument that today’s filibuster would have made the Civil Rights Act unnecessary to filibuster is absurdly reductive.
In this case Con is suggesting that changes made to the filibuster are irrelevant, despite the impact those rule changes have on lawmaking 

Torching the filibuster wouldn’t open the floodgates for restrictive abortion laws—that ship has already sailed at the state level.
And finally, this argument displays a rudimentary misunderstanding of the actual function of the filibuster. Because the republicans currently hold a majority in congress, they could absolutely create restrictive abortion legislation in the absence of the filibuster, overruling state level mandates. 

2. Conceptual Misunderstanding

Throughout this debate, con frequently fails to identify the core elements of my argument, leading to various irrelevant counterarguments. 

a. Reference to the actions of voters 

At many points throughout the debate, con attempts to invalidate my argument simply by saying that voters did in fact value the issue of abortion over others. The examples are as follows: 

"The flaw in your argument is clear: the personal stakes of abortion far outweigh abstract macroeconomic concerns for millions of voters."
"Your claim is that abortion shouldn’t have been a top issue, not that it wasn’t an issue at all. Fine. But for many voters, abortion wasn’t just an issue—it was the issue. "
"Critiquing your attempt to dictate voter priorities isn’t attacking you—it’s dismantling your argument’s presumptuous tone."
My argument in Pro #5 - The Conclusion: Missing the Point, critiques the validity of cons counter argument. Con continues to stand by these points and does not properly refute my argument.

b. General Mischaracterization 

My opponent mischaracterizes my argument in multiple circumstances: 
 Remember 2017, when McConnell nuked the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees? - it’s a rusty shield conservatives have used to block progress while their own agenda rolls through unscathed.
In this case, con references an event which I referenced in my previous post. I discuss this in depth in Pro #5 - Harris.
Comparing Trump’s role to a getaway driver might feel dismissive, but it’s not inaccurate. He didn’t swing the axe himself—he handed it to people he knew would.
  This is another instance where my opponent actually makes the exact same point I did in my previous argument but presents it as a counter to my argument. This is discussed further in Pro #5 - 2a 
Your attempt to frame this argument as neutral—applying to both Trump and Harris—falls flat. 
This quote is counter argument to my point that is argument applies to both candidates, and I don't understand how con believes this argument "fell flat". I was simply clarifying that my argument applied to both candidates, and if you look at the very basics of my argument, you will see that this is objectively true. 

3. Logical Fallacies:

a. Why Con's argument is ad hominem: 

This section is a response to cons argument regarding logical fallacies in Con #8 - Legislative Practicality. This statement displays a basic misunderstanding of logical fallacies, particularly ad hominem: 
You accuse me of ad hominem attacks for pointing out that voters don’t need your blessing to prioritize abortion. That’s not ad hominem; that’s democracy.
The specific argument referenced in this quote does not engage with the content of the argument, but rather the perceived authority I hold in making the argument. It ignores my actual claim and implies that because I lack the right or standing to make the claim, the claim itself is invalid. This is a textbook example of ad hominem, as per the definition provided in the sources of Pro #7.

4. Argumentative Currency: 

Con's application of the Roe v. Wade decision is entirely invalid on the basis of argumentative currency. My opponent makes 2 distinct arguments regarding the ruling. 

a. The legislative fragility claim 

Con repeatedly makes the claim that the issue of abortion is an issue that can have "immediate consequences". I refute this point in Pro #7 - 1a, and Con does not have a rebuttal for my points in their next argument. The idea that abortion is an issue that has immediate consequences on a national scale is essential to refuting my original point, and Con does not at any point provide evidence to suggest that is the case.

b. Trumps Abortion Policy 

This point is discussed thoroughly in the debate but con appears to have the incorrect assumption that Donald Trump intends to further restrict abortion rights on a national level. Trump has repeatedly said throughout his campaign that he intends to do nothing about abortion on the federal level and wants to leave the issue to the states. In fact, this has been his primary talking point about abortion for the entire election cycle. Con attempts to claim that because Trump intended to dismantle Roe v. Wade, one must assume it is a goal of his to further restrict abortion. This is objectively untrue. Having a goal and reaching it does not necessarily change your end goal, as I point out in my marathon runner analogy (Pro #7 - 2b).

5. The Litmus Test 

One of the essential supports of my opponent's argument is that abortion can be used as a litmus test for a presidential candidate's morality.
 Abortion wasn’t a fringe issue; it was a litmus test for leadership, morality, and the values that guide our democracy.
I think this is objectively untrue, and that con's argument regarding this issue in Con #8 demonstrates a misunderstanding of the litmus test.
The quote is as follows: 
You argue that abortion isn’t a good litmus test because it isn’t a “black and white issue.” Wrong. The litmus test isn’t about moral absolutism; it’s about priorities.
In my argument prior to this point made by con, I made sure to include a definition of the litmus test to ensure that we were viewing the test the same way. That definition is as follows: "something (such as an opinion about a political or moral issue) that is used to make a judgment about whether someone or something is acceptable". Con repeatedly attempts to entail that abortion is a good litmus test in regard to morality, which means that according to con, there is a moral side to the abortion debate, and an immoral one. I firmly believe that there are moral stances on both sides of the debate. While Con dismisses that belief as a "sidestep to the real issue", but it isn't. That belief invalidates the use of abortion as a moral litmus test entirely. 
Morality and Leadership: The Litmus Test Isn’t Just Black and White
It's also worth noting that by definition, the litmus test is black and white.
6. Final Point

This debate has been heavily contested throughout, but I believe that con has failed to refute my original point that the legislative inability of the president in regard to abortion should automatically deprioritize the issue in comparison to other issues that the president has a direct impact on. While Con does make an argument as to how the president can and has affected abortion policy in the past, the most significant impact listed (Roe v. Wade), isn't relevant to the 2025-2029 presidential term, and the rest of their argument fails to provide sufficient evidence to disprove my original point.








KMA0017's avatar
KMA0017
Con
#10
1. Legislative Practicality: The Core of the Dispute
 
Your entire argument hinges on the idea that the president’s inability to legislate abortion should deprioritize the issue for voters. You’ve repeatedly ignored the president’s indirect, yet powerful, role in shaping abortion policy. Judicial appointments are part of it, sure, but far from the whole story.
 
Expanding Beyond Judicial Appointments
Presidents influence abortion policy through federal funding priorities, executive orders, and political messaging. For instance, Biden’s executive order after Dobbs expanded access to medication abortion, counteracting some state-level restrictions. Presidents also control funding for Title X programs, which directly impact reproductive healthcare access. When Trump cut Title X funds for clinics offering abortion referrals, it forced many providers to close, creating healthcare deserts.
 
You dismiss these tools as irrelevant. They’re not. They’re the scaffolding of abortion policy, shaping access and enforcement even in the absence of legislative changes.
 
Filibuster Defense: A Relic of Gridlock
You cling to the filibuster as a safeguard against Republican overreach, ignoring its modern function as a roadblock to progress. Yes, Democrats and Republicans have both used it, but its current use overwhelmingly favors obstruction, not governance. Your reliance on the filibuster as a balancing mechanism ignores today’s hyper-polarized environment, where compromise is a fantasy.
 
2. Conceptual Misunderstanding: Voter Actions
 
You argue that voters shouldn’t prioritize abortion because it’s not “practical” to expect presidential action. But democracy isn’t a classroom exercise in prioritization theory. Voters act on what’s personal, immediate, and existential. You dismiss this as irrelevant, yet it’s the foundation of how democracy functions.
 
Here’s what you missed: abortion isn’t just about reproductive rights—it’s about healthcare access, economic stability, and gender equality. The Dobbs decision has already forced women to travel across state lines, miss work, and incur massive costs just to obtain care. These aren’t abstract concerns—they’re real, lived consequences.
 
If you think voters should deprioritize abortion, ask yourself this: how do you tell someone whose healthcare options were stripped away that their issue doesn’t matter because the president “can’t legislate”?
 
3. Trump: A Marathon Runner Still in the Race
 
Your marathon runner analogy is clever but flawed. Trump’s goal wasn’t just overturning Roe—it was solidifying a judicial framework that restricts abortion for decades. His appointments didn’t just dismantle Roe; they enabled state-level bans, expanded legal battles over contraception, and signaled support for federal restrictions. Suggesting he has no further interest in abortion policy ignores the political capital he gains from energizing his base with culture war issues.
 
You argue that Trump repeatedly said he wouldn’t pursue federal abortion legislation. Sure, and he also said Mexico would pay for the wall. Political promises mean nothing without action to back them up, and Trump’s actions—like appointing justices who overturned Roe—tell a different story.
 
4. Morality and Leadership: The Litmus Test Stands
 
You dismiss abortion as a moral litmus test because you believe both sides have valid moral stances. That’s an interesting philosophical position but irrelevant in the political arena. Politics isn’t about abstract morality—it’s about tangible outcomes. A candidate’s stance on abortion reflects their commitment to autonomy, equality, and human rights.
 
Let’s be clear: voters weren’t using abortion as a moral purity test. They were using it to gauge a candidate’s priorities and values. A candidate who doesn’t believe in protecting reproductive rights likely won’t prioritize other freedoms either. The litmus test isn’t about black-and-white morality—it’s about trust.
 
5. Argumentative Currency: The Stakes Are Real
 
You claim that Dobbs was irrelevant in the 2024 election because the precedent was already overturned. That’s absurd. The consequences of Dobbs didn’t end with the decision—they multiplied. States enacted near-total bans, leaving millions without access to care. Healthcare providers were forced to close, disproportionately affecting low-income and rural communities.
 
These stakes weren’t hypothetical—they were immediate and devastating. Suggesting voters should deprioritize abortion because the decision was already made ignores the ripple effects that continue to shape lives across the country.
 
6. Emotional Appeal: The Real Stakes
 
Abortion isn’t just a policy issue—it’s a lifeline. The Dobbs fallout included women denied life-saving care for ectopic pregnancies because doctors feared legal consequences. Clinics in neighboring states were overwhelmed, forcing patients to wait weeks for appointments they couldn’t afford to delay. These stories are everywhere, yet your argument asks voters to brush them aside for “practicality.”
 
Telling voters their pain isn’t practical enough to prioritize isn’t just wrong—it’s cruel. Democracy is about representing those realities, not dismissing them.
 
7. Conclusion: Your Thesis Doesn’t Hold
 
You argue that the president’s inability to legislate abortion should deprioritize the issue. That’s where your argument collapses. Presidential influence isn’t limited to legislation. Judicial appointments, executive orders, and federal funding all shape the landscape of reproductive rights. Voters understood that in 2024, even if you don’t.
 
Your framework assumes voters should prioritize issues clinically, ignoring the emotional and personal stakes that drive democratic participation. But democracy isn’t a tidy checklist—it’s a messy, human process where values and lived experiences matter as much as legislative feasibility.
 
In 2024, abortion wasn’t just a “major issue”—it was the defining issue for millions. Your argument, while thoughtful, oversimplifies the complexities of democracy and fails to account for the enduring influence of presidential power.
 
Sources:
 
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama-health-forum/fullarticle/2785251
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/filibuster-senate-what-is-it-how-does-it-work/
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/08/23/abortion-rises-in-importance-as-a-voting-issue-driven-by-democrats/
https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/abortion-election-how-youth-prioritized-and-voted-based-issues
 
Thank you, Lacr3000, for an engaging and well-argued debate. Your points were thorough, articulate, and grounded in logic, making this an intellectually stimulating exchange 🤯. It’s debates like these that  I genuinely appreciate. Thanks for putting in the time and effort you put crafting your argument!
 
Looking forward to crossing paths again—hopefully on another topic just as compelling. Cheers!😊