...and other things that stink
A Red Herring is a salt & smoke cured fish — quite aromatic.
Drawing a red herring across a trail confuses hunting dogs and sends them off in the wrong direction. In politics, it’s much the same thing. You think you’re talking about one thing, and the other side tosses a red herring into the mix, sending you off trying to defend a tangent, and ignoring the main point.
This is happening full force today. Unhinged politicians who are lawyers and should know better are claiming that if the Supreme Court strikes down the Roe v Wade ruling, a woman’s authority over her own body will be destroyed. This is a red herring at the start that begets a bunch of lies downstream.
The regulation of abortion is a matter for State legislatures, State executives, and State courts. Roe v Wade presumes a Constitutional right that cannot be found anywhere in the Constitution. If it is struck down, women may still seek abortions in any state that promotes them, like California, New Jersey, New York, et al. Big mega-wealth people like Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, and Nancy Pelosi could use their wealth to pay indigents’ costs to travel out of state if need be and to pay the abortionists - without forcing people who are appalled by the practice to fund and support it.
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance. — Thomas Sowell
If dishonest or ignorant people insist on throwing red herrings into the discussion, here is a red herring that you can throw right back: Please explain the moral difference between aborting an unwanted eight-month fetus who could survive premature birth, or killing an unwanted three-year-old child. This, of course, has nothing to do with whether Roe v Wade survives or is struck down.
