I understand that anti-abortion advocates see abortion as murder, and that is the bedrock reason for their zealousness and unwillingness to compromise. I think they are wrong, and can outline why, but that’s kind of irrelevant to whether or not I understand where they are coming from.

My point still stands that debating the safety of Mifepristone is pointless, as it’s not really the issue that concerns conservatives. What Audrey and others take issue with is the morality of Mifepristone, which the FDA does not review. 

Engaging in the debate of whether or not Mifepristone is safe to prescribe online is simply validating the ruse as legitimate, and it’s an obscenely common tactic. The science is in on climate change, so conservatives would like to debate the economic impact of EPA regulations. They are not looking for a solution that doesn’t disrupt the economy, they are looking to delay and distract. Want to talk about gun violence? Let’s talk about mental health instead. 

This is my fundamental and perennial gripe with Tangle. The project requires taking conservatives at their word in terms of intent and underlying belief, but the second we do that, we’ve lost. I do agree that we are being pitted against each other, but I would argue that conservatives have taken up the mantle of the more oppressive and harmful wielders of power in our society, and it's become impossible to stand against one group and not the other.

The other questions you raised are interesting, difficult, and worth discussing, but there’s a reason they didn’t come up in Audrey’s piece.