Then you had probably better stop implying that women whose hearts break over the thought of the murder of unborn babies, and work to fund child care initiatives in the hope that the babies are instead saved and born and cared for, are actually monsters who think women are brood mares, hm?
On your side, you see real people with feelings; people who are scared or in pain, people who have eminently reasonable positions that are aligned with yours (to the point where you somehow missed that like a quarter of the people on your side profess beliefs you didn't even think existed). On the other side, your rhetoric makes it sound like you only see monsters and demons, dominance and hypocrisy.
But I see only people on both sides. And I see a spectrum of views, too, not just two sides.
I don't expect people who feel gut-punched and who are reeling to behave in a calm and rational way. I do expect that those who care about anyone feeling that way would try to help them find a bit of solace and develop coping strategies rather than stoke their negative feelings. I think stoking feelings of fear and powerlessness is quite cruel if done intentionally.
Pretty much every piece of advice about what to do in an emergency starts with: in case of emergency, don't panic. You're here telling me: in case of emergency, panic! Help the panicked people panic more! Pay no attention to whatever collateral damage they might incur! Have you no heart? Help the panicked people panic!
No. I won't. It's too cruel.
Maybe despite your mostly calm demeanor you also are reeling and feel gut-punched. If so, I am sorry. I really am. And I am sorry for everyone else who feels that way. The state of abortion rights in the U.S. is an absolute tragedy and an absolute travesty.
However, if it appears that we're in a state of mind so that we're thinking through how to actually solve the emergency, then I absolutely am going to call people on adopting counterproductive strategies because I don't want them to be hurt by being misguided. So it seemed was the case to me. I'm not going to vilify people who have bad strategies for reaching good outcomes, but it is important to somehow convey that they are wrong, and if someone else tries to convey the ways in which they're wrong and does an insensitive job (e.g. Dancona) I think a polite but firm correction is the best strategy, not one that extracts the maximum possible outrage and offense from the comments and blasts back in proportion to that.
You keep claiming that you've rebutted everything I say with a fuller picture, except you haven't addressed any of my actual examples of moderate positioning winning the day. (If you want me to address some of your sort-of-counterexamples, say which and I'll do so, since I've gotten into answering again.) And you also haven't addressed my core big-picture claim, which is that you need different strategies in different situations. You quote MLK on explaining (not advocating for!) riots, but you don't quote MLK's Principles of Nonviolence, like this one: "Nonviolence seeks to defeat injustice, not people. Nonviolence recognizes that evildoers are also victims and are not evil people. The nonviolent resister seeks to defeat evil, not people."
Or this one: "Nonviolence seeks to win friendship and understanding. The result of nonviolence is redemption and reconciliation."
You keep going, "stop the evil people, fight fight fight!" Or so it seems.
As a very practical matter, right now, with no extra outreach, no extra visibility, nothing, 60% of people say they support abortion through the first trimester. 70% say they support Roe. (Obviously, more than 10% of people are confused, since Roe is more permissive than legal-through-first-trimester, or a lot of people took the position of "don't rock the boat" which means that they don't have really strong feelings about the morality of the situation.) Congress, when it reconvenes presumably on September 6, could try to pass legislation to legalize first-trimester abortion, like Dancona says. Or maybe to codify Roe, like Manchin wants (though that's risky: what if anti-abortion folks successfully make the case that Roe doesn't match what most people say they support?). Depending on framing, that should get 60-70% support. It's the more popular position in over 30 of 50 states. This could get done, and it could get done fast...or if not, it would be absolutely devastating for Republicans in the fall. But I doubt they'd let it happen; it's just too damaging. They generally see the writing on the wall when Democrats hit on something popular with the Republicans' constituents (e.g. gun regulations in response to Uvalde--15 Republican senators voted with Democrats, swayed by the 60-to-35 polling in favor of more restrictions). Less-than-Roe would likely pass easily. This is what Dancona is calling for--something that would quickly restore rights, those covering 90% of abortions, to those who have lost them.
In contrast, what the Democrats did try was WHPA, which gives full rights to abortion through the end of the second trimester, and which is only supported by about 30% of people (prior to additional outreach/visibility). (Source: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-americans-stand-on-abortion-in-5-charts/)
Now, if you actually care about people who are reeling and feel gut-punched, and they feel that way because of the actual consequences of overturning Roe, unless you think getting back 90% of what was lost is irrelevant, you should be absolutely scathing towards Democrats futzing around with WHPA and cheering Dancona's attitude as providing fast, effective--yet inadequate--relief. Still, it's an emergency: take the partial win, relieve some of the pain and shock, and move on to the next goal.
On the other hand, if you think the reeling/gut-punch feelings have passed, that it's time to calmly strategize about how to get acceptable rights in the long run, then Dancova's position is not really acceptable--the 8.5% or so of abortions that happen in the second trimester can be really important for the women who need them. But his strategy is sound because the goal is to win over most of the 40% of people who say they think Roe is okay but think abortion during the second trimester is not okay. Either this reflects confusion--in which case you need to educate them without alienating them by e.g. insulting them; or it reflects an intermediate position that you may be able to shift by raising sympathy for the plight of people who wouldn't be covered...while still not alienating them by insulting them.
What you absolutely mustn't do is sound like a plantation owner protesting vigorously that they be allowed to murder the people they've enslaved because "slaves are sub-human". "Think of the danger and burden to the plantation owner who has an uppity slave!" they might say. "Slaves are my property. I didn't even wish to end up with this slave--I got them as part of a trade! I can do what I want with my property. If I burn my barn down, can you stop me? No! So if I wished to burn my slave down, how would it be any different? Autonomy of property is the only concern here!"
The only reason why the pro-choice position isn't like the plantation owner position is that the enslaved people were...well...people, and we are quite confident (scientifically) that early in pregnancy, fetuses do not have anything meaningfully akin to a human experience. But to people who believe that fetuses are no less of persons than enslaved people, the pro-choice position can sound monstrous. And while there are people who are just flat-out hypocritical and cynically say that abortion is murder because their worldview includes that the proper role of women is to make babies, and that babies should be accidents ("gifts from God", maybe) not planned, there are also lots of people who really do view abortion as murder. You don't seem to see this at all. You don't seem to have any awareness that opposition might be from people with deep moral concerns--deeper even than your own. You seem to see monsters.
I only see people. Confused people doing evil, perhaps, but people. I seek to defeat evil, not people.
And how do we defeat this evil? Do we think if we are shrill enough, if we protest in front of Supreme Court justices enough, if we appear pained enough, that everyone will acquiesce and say, "Gosh, you're right! Your slaves, your property, murder them as you please."
Or is the way to go to say, "Um, you know...you're just making a mistake. We were never talking about enslaved people to begin with. In this case, we're talking about something that might as well be a cabbage. There, something less than a mouse. We don't want to be cruel even to mice, but there's no suffering here, and no helpless person here. We understand why you might intuitively think so, but look, let's walk through the situation together, and talk about what is really going on, and how the miracle of life isn't POOF, BANG! but a miracle that happens in slow motion. And let's also talk about the horrible consequences that people suffer if we make the wrong decision by thinking we have a critical issue of morality where none exists."
In terms of gaining legislative support, women's suffrage is a very good parallel to abortion rights, except for the Roe vs Wade decision. You have the same kind of mix of states that already allow suffrage/abortion and those that don't. The issue is widely if not deeply understood by most Americans. The patriarchy angle impacts both. It was/has been an issue with high visibility for decades. You have large numbers of people on both sides. The evidence from WWI is a bit like the evidence from Roe (women are competent; women do not get piles of late-term abortions in lieu of birth control). You have a more strident group, the NWP, and a more moderate group, NAWSA. NAWSA members were active; I'm not saying passivity is a good idea. But I am saying that when you're close to victory, sealing the win by making sure you get moderates is almost always the way to go. If you think otherwise, how about you either explain why NWP was actually the critical organization for sealing the deal, or come up with some other parallel that is a better fit?
You can get moderates by scare-mongering about the opponents and hoping the voters buy it. ("The Republicans are going to cut Medicare!" "The Democrats are going to take your guns!") Or you can get moderates by educating people as to why your position actually is the moderate position and basically aligns with their feelings on the issue. Or you can get moderates by provoking a showdown that induces your opponents to show how barbaric they are...but this is risky, because if they don't take the bait, you're the one who looks bad. Or you can try to win without moderates by taking a strident position to motivate your base...but somehow manage to do so without motivating your opponents' base. That's a tough thing to do with abortion, because the opponents are motivated too, and it hasn't been working for Democrats lately (c.f. my previous link showing that moderate Democrats beat their Republican challengers more often than did more-progressive Democrats).
Or you can gerrymander the thing, and then manipulation of demographics solves the problem for you. But we don't have that available as an option for abortion right now, and anyway, that's what you do when you think authoritarian rule is better than democracy, but can't quite bring yourself to say so.
MLK was viewed with a lot of hostility at the time, but Malcolm X was seen as the real extremist. It took the wisdom of hindsight for everyone to see what many saw (but many didn't) at the time: MLK was preaching the same values of humanity that time and time again forms the core of the most powerful argument for justice and equality.
Abortion rights is a particularly tricky issue in this regard because you have to not just address the humanity of the pregnant woman, but also whether the fetus has humanity, while simultaneously respecting the humanity of people of differing perspectives.
If you were preaching humanity, I would have no quarrel with your strategy. It is because you largely were not (in opposition to Dancova who largely appeared to be) that I commented in the first place, even though I (as far as I know) agree with your policy goal and not with Dancona's.