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

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.

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'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.

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. 

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/
 

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.

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.

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.

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: 

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
 

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.

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. 

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.

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). 

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.

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. 

In Favor: 68

Against: 21

Not Voting: 11

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: 

In Favor: 73

Against: 27

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.

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.

The thing is the rights wouldn't be eroded; that's something I've made very clear.

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

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:

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/
 

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

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 

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.

These statements: 

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. 

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.

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:

Don't see where we are in disagreement here. 

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 

This quote also applies to my point above

 3. Harris: 

The filibuster only lasted for 60 working days in the senate. 

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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

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. 

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: