Also, we want modern medicine to preserve life, as long as it doesn’t use fetal stem cells.

I’m pro-life, but I might be all for the state accidentally murdering an innocent person on death row from time to time to preserve the tradition, et cetera.

Little coffins for embryos

I might agree with Graham that the government should not force Americans to get vaccinated. It did not force Victory Garden growing in World War II, and it did not force infantry ground troops to become airborne. At some point, voluntary existentialism and science acceptance is either a value shared by a society, or it’s not. But, I don’t think he should say it so cavalierly. The decision to not get vaccinated from COVID may be a technical choice, but it is an abominable choice from the perspective of a patriot.

“I want to work with the Biden Administration if we can.”

Cool. Thank you. That is a rational, conservative political position.

Basically what Graham is saying is that he’s given up on the Big Lie being successful (assuming he ever knew it was a Big Lie, and just doesn’t want to admit it), or he’s saying that he maintained honest skepticism of the election outcome until about a month after January 6, which he maintains was his right, after which he was satisfied from the outcomes of the lawsuits that there was no fraud.

We might not be able to prove which scenario is true, which might suggest it is functionally irrelevant. He is saying the right thing now, even if he can’t, or won’t, put his finger on exactly what changed his mind, or when he changed it.

If there is anything to be reasonably gained from the line of questioning, therefore, it might be to ask Graham at what point he stopped questioning the election outcome himself, and why.

Also, note that Graham does not forcefully denounce those who still won’t accept the outcome, or warn that doing so could become dangerous. Apparently, there is moral room in his mind for rational adult citizens of a republican democracy STILL not accepting the results, despite 86 lawsuits.

It’s moral fence-sitting, of a sort. Moral relativism. A refusal to take a strong moral stand on something one way or another, usually by attempting to disembody it from the sphere of morality altogether, or otherwise declare both choices good, or at worst subject to a higher moral mandate, in this case, the assertion that taking casual action, in defiance of science, which could kill another human being, as well as one’s self, is reasonable (mask-wearing), or that unfounded sedition founded on baseless conspiracy theories is okay.