|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 12 2022 10:08 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2022 10:04 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 12 2022 09:40 JimmiC wrote:On May 12 2022 08:59 Introvert wrote:
Quick thing on a few items people are mentioning.
1.a every state that has passed an abortion ban that I recall has a provision for abortion the case of the life of the mother/serious injury throughout the entire pregnancy. People mockingly talking about "self-defense" are being ignorant or just dumb.
1.b It is true that many of these states do have total bans in (i.e. "week zero") and some of them don't have rape/incest exceptions. This, however, is not where most will land and at the very least we can put away this talk of risking life. As distasteful as this may be to many, it's not hypocrisy on the part of pro-lifers.
2. most (all?) of these states go after doctors or organizations that perform the abortions not the mothers. While I admit there is some logic in seeking penalties against the potential mom herself, that's unpalatable to most and pro-lifers generally want to help and deter prospective mothers or women who have had abortions to convince them to not do it (again) rather than take any punitive action. And yes, there are lots of smaller orgs that do things like this, not every bit of help has go through a government bureaucracy.
But, amazing as it may sound, people in this thread or generally more ignorant of pro-lifers and what they want and what they do to support women considering abortion than they are of other generally conservative positions. Or maybe just equally ignorant, but they shriek louder on this. This also applies to....
3. conservatives (idk as much about republicans, havent seen any polling) generally oppose doctor assisted suicide. Saying you don't know which side they would come down on based on their death penalty stance is either an admission that you haven't actually thought about it very hard (the logic from either is not hard to think through) or just an attempt at some rhetorical grandstanding.
Nope it is hard to understand why someone who claims they leave judgement to a higher power, believe im forgiveness and value life above all else, would be pro death penalty and against doctor assisted suicide. I guess you only want to kill those who want to live. As for all the other glossing over the extra terrible parts, and then thinking we do not understand that you want only the regular terrible parts sounds like you have not thought to hard about what people are upset about and how terrible it is EVEN if they had the exceptions they do not. Like you think that most of the "prolife" people only want to kill doctors and not the moms is some sort of sensible position. There are nuances between these different issues that you are ignoring. It's not so simple as to say "they use the moniker pro-life for abortion, therefore to be consistent they must support the European welfare state concept." That would be like me saying "because you believe in a right to bodily autonomy, it is inconsistent for you to also believe that vaccinations should be mandatory." Gotcha pro-life is just a moniker and not a belief system. Simple marketing to make them feel better about a horrible way of being, that makes much more sense.
Or you could put an ounce of effort into understanding Republicans' views and recognize that if a person believes abortion to be murder, they are "pro-life" in the sense that they're against murdering innocent people, and so it does not follow that they must also be anti-death penalty, because the death penalty is a justified killing (on par morally with self defense).
|
On May 12 2022 10:18 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2022 10:08 JimmiC wrote:On May 12 2022 10:04 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 12 2022 09:40 JimmiC wrote:On May 12 2022 08:59 Introvert wrote:
Quick thing on a few items people are mentioning.
1.a every state that has passed an abortion ban that I recall has a provision for abortion the case of the life of the mother/serious injury throughout the entire pregnancy. People mockingly talking about "self-defense" are being ignorant or just dumb.
1.b It is true that many of these states do have total bans in (i.e. "week zero") and some of them don't have rape/incest exceptions. This, however, is not where most will land and at the very least we can put away this talk of risking life. As distasteful as this may be to many, it's not hypocrisy on the part of pro-lifers.
2. most (all?) of these states go after doctors or organizations that perform the abortions not the mothers. While I admit there is some logic in seeking penalties against the potential mom herself, that's unpalatable to most and pro-lifers generally want to help and deter prospective mothers or women who have had abortions to convince them to not do it (again) rather than take any punitive action. And yes, there are lots of smaller orgs that do things like this, not every bit of help has go through a government bureaucracy.
But, amazing as it may sound, people in this thread or generally more ignorant of pro-lifers and what they want and what they do to support women considering abortion than they are of other generally conservative positions. Or maybe just equally ignorant, but they shriek louder on this. This also applies to....
3. conservatives (idk as much about republicans, havent seen any polling) generally oppose doctor assisted suicide. Saying you don't know which side they would come down on based on their death penalty stance is either an admission that you haven't actually thought about it very hard (the logic from either is not hard to think through) or just an attempt at some rhetorical grandstanding.
Nope it is hard to understand why someone who claims they leave judgement to a higher power, believe im forgiveness and value life above all else, would be pro death penalty and against doctor assisted suicide. I guess you only want to kill those who want to live. As for all the other glossing over the extra terrible parts, and then thinking we do not understand that you want only the regular terrible parts sounds like you have not thought to hard about what people are upset about and how terrible it is EVEN if they had the exceptions they do not. Like you think that most of the "prolife" people only want to kill doctors and not the moms is some sort of sensible position. There are nuances between these different issues that you are ignoring. It's not so simple as to say "they use the moniker pro-life for abortion, therefore to be consistent they must support the European welfare state concept." That would be like me saying "because you believe in a right to bodily autonomy, it is inconsistent for you to also believe that vaccinations should be mandatory." Gotcha pro-life is just a moniker and not a belief system. Simple marketing to make them feel better about a horrible way of being, that makes much more sense. Or you could put an ounce of effort into understanding Republicans' views and recognize that if a person believes abortion to be murder, they are "pro-life" in the sense that they're against murdering innocent people, and so it does not follow that they must also be anti-death penalty, because the death penalty is a justified killing (on par morally with self defense).
Many people would disagree that the death penalty is a justified killing. Just because a criminal is convicted and not innocent, doesn't mean that they're necessarily deserving of being put to death.
|
|
|
On May 12 2022 10:18 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2022 10:08 JimmiC wrote:On May 12 2022 10:04 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 12 2022 09:40 JimmiC wrote:On May 12 2022 08:59 Introvert wrote:
Quick thing on a few items people are mentioning.
1.a every state that has passed an abortion ban that I recall has a provision for abortion the case of the life of the mother/serious injury throughout the entire pregnancy. People mockingly talking about "self-defense" are being ignorant or just dumb.
1.b It is true that many of these states do have total bans in (i.e. "week zero") and some of them don't have rape/incest exceptions. This, however, is not where most will land and at the very least we can put away this talk of risking life. As distasteful as this may be to many, it's not hypocrisy on the part of pro-lifers.
2. most (all?) of these states go after doctors or organizations that perform the abortions not the mothers. While I admit there is some logic in seeking penalties against the potential mom herself, that's unpalatable to most and pro-lifers generally want to help and deter prospective mothers or women who have had abortions to convince them to not do it (again) rather than take any punitive action. And yes, there are lots of smaller orgs that do things like this, not every bit of help has go through a government bureaucracy.
But, amazing as it may sound, people in this thread or generally more ignorant of pro-lifers and what they want and what they do to support women considering abortion than they are of other generally conservative positions. Or maybe just equally ignorant, but they shriek louder on this. This also applies to....
3. conservatives (idk as much about republicans, havent seen any polling) generally oppose doctor assisted suicide. Saying you don't know which side they would come down on based on their death penalty stance is either an admission that you haven't actually thought about it very hard (the logic from either is not hard to think through) or just an attempt at some rhetorical grandstanding.
Nope it is hard to understand why someone who claims they leave judgement to a higher power, believe im forgiveness and value life above all else, would be pro death penalty and against doctor assisted suicide. I guess you only want to kill those who want to live. As for all the other glossing over the extra terrible parts, and then thinking we do not understand that you want only the regular terrible parts sounds like you have not thought to hard about what people are upset about and how terrible it is EVEN if they had the exceptions they do not. Like you think that most of the "prolife" people only want to kill doctors and not the moms is some sort of sensible position. There are nuances between these different issues that you are ignoring. It's not so simple as to say "they use the moniker pro-life for abortion, therefore to be consistent they must support the European welfare state concept." That would be like me saying "because you believe in a right to bodily autonomy, it is inconsistent for you to also believe that vaccinations should be mandatory." Gotcha pro-life is just a moniker and not a belief system. Simple marketing to make them feel better about a horrible way of being, that makes much more sense. Or you could put an ounce of effort into understanding Republicans' views and recognize that if a person believes abortion to be murder, they are "pro-life" in the sense that they're against murdering innocent people, and so it does not follow that they must also be anti-death penalty, because the death penalty is a justified killing (on par morally with self defense).
The problem is not whether someone believes an abortion is tantamount to murder. It's not. But one can hold that perspective earnestly. The reason people don't buy it in nearly every case is because as soon as it becomes any other kind of life, foreign, criminal, doctor, Muslim, Jew, gay, transgender, medically invalid, their position regarding the sanctity of life evaporates.
The argument that all life is sacred conveniently appears as soon as we're talking about a fetus - the potential for life - which places a parasitic burden on women. And then the argument conveniently disappears when you're talking about literally anything else. It's the pinnacle of bad faith expression. If you want to beseech people to understand why the belief might be sincere, then you need to return the favor and try to understand why people can find it insincere. Because that's what the pro-forced-birth crowd has earned for itself.
|
United States42490 Posts
On May 12 2022 11:21 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2022 10:18 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 12 2022 10:08 JimmiC wrote:On May 12 2022 10:04 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 12 2022 09:40 JimmiC wrote:On May 12 2022 08:59 Introvert wrote:
Quick thing on a few items people are mentioning.
1.a every state that has passed an abortion ban that I recall has a provision for abortion the case of the life of the mother/serious injury throughout the entire pregnancy. People mockingly talking about "self-defense" are being ignorant or just dumb.
1.b It is true that many of these states do have total bans in (i.e. "week zero") and some of them don't have rape/incest exceptions. This, however, is not where most will land and at the very least we can put away this talk of risking life. As distasteful as this may be to many, it's not hypocrisy on the part of pro-lifers.
2. most (all?) of these states go after doctors or organizations that perform the abortions not the mothers. While I admit there is some logic in seeking penalties against the potential mom herself, that's unpalatable to most and pro-lifers generally want to help and deter prospective mothers or women who have had abortions to convince them to not do it (again) rather than take any punitive action. And yes, there are lots of smaller orgs that do things like this, not every bit of help has go through a government bureaucracy.
But, amazing as it may sound, people in this thread or generally more ignorant of pro-lifers and what they want and what they do to support women considering abortion than they are of other generally conservative positions. Or maybe just equally ignorant, but they shriek louder on this. This also applies to....
3. conservatives (idk as much about republicans, havent seen any polling) generally oppose doctor assisted suicide. Saying you don't know which side they would come down on based on their death penalty stance is either an admission that you haven't actually thought about it very hard (the logic from either is not hard to think through) or just an attempt at some rhetorical grandstanding.
Nope it is hard to understand why someone who claims they leave judgement to a higher power, believe im forgiveness and value life above all else, would be pro death penalty and against doctor assisted suicide. I guess you only want to kill those who want to live. As for all the other glossing over the extra terrible parts, and then thinking we do not understand that you want only the regular terrible parts sounds like you have not thought to hard about what people are upset about and how terrible it is EVEN if they had the exceptions they do not. Like you think that most of the "prolife" people only want to kill doctors and not the moms is some sort of sensible position. There are nuances between these different issues that you are ignoring. It's not so simple as to say "they use the moniker pro-life for abortion, therefore to be consistent they must support the European welfare state concept." That would be like me saying "because you believe in a right to bodily autonomy, it is inconsistent for you to also believe that vaccinations should be mandatory." Gotcha pro-life is just a moniker and not a belief system. Simple marketing to make them feel better about a horrible way of being, that makes much more sense. Or you could put an ounce of effort into understanding Republicans' views and recognize that if a person believes abortion to be murder, they are "pro-life" in the sense that they're against murdering innocent people, and so it does not follow that they must also be anti-death penalty, because the death penalty is a justified killing (on par morally with self defense). The problem is not whether someone believes an abortion is tantamount to murder. It's not. But one can hold that perspective earnestly. The reason people don't buy it in nearly every case is because as soon as it becomes any other kind of life, foreign, criminal, doctor, Muslim, Jew, gay, transgender, medically invalid, their position regarding the sanctity of life evaporates. The argument that all life is sacred conveniently appears as soon as we're talking about a fetus - the potential for life - which places a parasitic burden on women. And then the argument conveniently disappears when you're talking about literally anything else. It's the pinnacle of bad faith expression.
Ask these people to give up some capital gains to fund a food bank and they’re moaning about societal parasites and how starving is really just the incentive some people need to invent a bootstrap. Ask them if women should give up their body and sacrifice their health to support literal biological parasites and suddenly all life is sacred.
It’s tough to reconcile until you remember that they hate women and they hate the poor.
|
On May 12 2022 11:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2022 11:21 NewSunshine wrote:On May 12 2022 10:18 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 12 2022 10:08 JimmiC wrote:On May 12 2022 10:04 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 12 2022 09:40 JimmiC wrote:On May 12 2022 08:59 Introvert wrote:
Quick thing on a few items people are mentioning.
1.a every state that has passed an abortion ban that I recall has a provision for abortion the case of the life of the mother/serious injury throughout the entire pregnancy. People mockingly talking about "self-defense" are being ignorant or just dumb.
1.b It is true that many of these states do have total bans in (i.e. "week zero") and some of them don't have rape/incest exceptions. This, however, is not where most will land and at the very least we can put away this talk of risking life. As distasteful as this may be to many, it's not hypocrisy on the part of pro-lifers.
2. most (all?) of these states go after doctors or organizations that perform the abortions not the mothers. While I admit there is some logic in seeking penalties against the potential mom herself, that's unpalatable to most and pro-lifers generally want to help and deter prospective mothers or women who have had abortions to convince them to not do it (again) rather than take any punitive action. And yes, there are lots of smaller orgs that do things like this, not every bit of help has go through a government bureaucracy.
But, amazing as it may sound, people in this thread or generally more ignorant of pro-lifers and what they want and what they do to support women considering abortion than they are of other generally conservative positions. Or maybe just equally ignorant, but they shriek louder on this. This also applies to....
3. conservatives (idk as much about republicans, havent seen any polling) generally oppose doctor assisted suicide. Saying you don't know which side they would come down on based on their death penalty stance is either an admission that you haven't actually thought about it very hard (the logic from either is not hard to think through) or just an attempt at some rhetorical grandstanding.
Nope it is hard to understand why someone who claims they leave judgement to a higher power, believe im forgiveness and value life above all else, would be pro death penalty and against doctor assisted suicide. I guess you only want to kill those who want to live. As for all the other glossing over the extra terrible parts, and then thinking we do not understand that you want only the regular terrible parts sounds like you have not thought to hard about what people are upset about and how terrible it is EVEN if they had the exceptions they do not. Like you think that most of the "prolife" people only want to kill doctors and not the moms is some sort of sensible position. There are nuances between these different issues that you are ignoring. It's not so simple as to say "they use the moniker pro-life for abortion, therefore to be consistent they must support the European welfare state concept." That would be like me saying "because you believe in a right to bodily autonomy, it is inconsistent for you to also believe that vaccinations should be mandatory." Gotcha pro-life is just a moniker and not a belief system. Simple marketing to make them feel better about a horrible way of being, that makes much more sense. Or you could put an ounce of effort into understanding Republicans' views and recognize that if a person believes abortion to be murder, they are "pro-life" in the sense that they're against murdering innocent people, and so it does not follow that they must also be anti-death penalty, because the death penalty is a justified killing (on par morally with self defense). The problem is not whether someone believes an abortion is tantamount to murder. It's not. But one can hold that perspective earnestly. The reason people don't buy it in nearly every case is because as soon as it becomes any other kind of life, foreign, criminal, doctor, Muslim, Jew, gay, transgender, medically invalid, their position regarding the sanctity of life evaporates. The argument that all life is sacred conveniently appears as soon as we're talking about a fetus - the potential for life - which places a parasitic burden on women. And then the argument conveniently disappears when you're talking about literally anything else. It's the pinnacle of bad faith expression. Ask these people to give up some capital gains to fund a food bank and they’re moaning about societal parasites and how starving is really just the incentive some people need to invent a bootstrap. Ask them if women should give up their body and sacrifice their health to support literal biological parasites and suddenly all life is sacred. It’s tough to reconcile until you remember that they hate women and they hate the poor.
And it's hard to forget that when a Supreme Court opinion penned in 2022 cites someone who hated women who were loud and self-assertive. The woman's job is to quietly, obediently produce children for the White Christian Ethnostate.
|
|
|
You people have no idea what you are talking about and it shows. If it doesn't happen through a government program (which, spoiler, we do have btw) then it doesn't exist. And to top it off, you aren't even interested. Sad. You are all 10x more mean-spirited than the people you hate.
|
|
|
Yes, it's true that there exist bad people who are outspoken and influential in the anti abortion movement.
One should also be cognizant of the fact that there are bad people on both sides of the aisle.
I recall seeing a tweet from a progressive saying they'd make love with the draft opinion leaker then go abort the resulting fetus. Horribly insensitive to say the least.
There were also actors who said when Trump won the election in 2016, publicly, that they'd like to kill him.
Strangely it seems the zeal of gatekeeping objectionable speech only extends to the other side.
|
On May 12 2022 08:59 Introvert wrote:
Quick thing on a few items people are mentioning.
1.a every state that has passed an abortion ban that I recall has a provision for abortion the case of the life of the mother/serious injury throughout the entire pregnancy. People mockingly talking about "self-defense" are being ignorant or just dumb.
1.b It is true that many of these states do have total bans in (i.e. "week zero") and some of them don't have rape/incest exceptions. This, however, is not where most will land and at the very least we can put away this talk of risking life. As distasteful as this may be to many, it's not hypocrisy on the part of pro-lifers.
2. most (all?) of these states go after doctors or organizations that perform the abortions not the mothers. While I admit there is some logic in seeking penalties against the potential mom herself, that's unpalatable to most and pro-lifers generally want to help and deter prospective mothers or women who have had abortions to convince them to not do it (again) rather than take any punitive action. And yes, there are lots of smaller orgs that do things like this, not every bit of help has go through a government bureaucracy.
But, amazing as it may sound, people in this thread or generally more ignorant of pro-lifers and what they want and what they do to support women considering abortion than they are of other generally conservative positions. Or maybe just equally ignorant, but they shriek louder on this. This also applies to....
3. conservatives (idk as much about republicans, havent seen any polling) generally oppose doctor assisted suicide. Saying you don't know which side they would come down on based on their death penalty stance is either an admission that you haven't actually thought about it very hard (the logic from either is not hard to think through) or just an attempt at some rhetorical grandstanding.
1) I will take your word for it and assume no state is trying to ban abortion when the woman's life is at risk.
1b) I think you are glossing over rape/incest a bit too much. Until those exceptions are clearly laid out in every state, you can't just pretend people are wrong to be upset. I am going to assume you agree abortion is acceptable in the case of rape/incest.
You are saying "most". Are you saying it is acceptable for any state to force a woman to give birth to their rapist's baby? Should people tolerate it just because it isn't common? That is clearly something worth being mad about.
I admit that I totally appreciate opposition to abortion if you see it as killing a baby. I can't say I agree with the basic premise of the thought, but if that's what you think, clearly that's an entirely reasonable thing to oppose. I am 100% against killing babies. If you view a 6 week old fetus as a baby, I do not blame you for wanting to keep it alive.
When I learned my wife was pregnant, about 6 weeks in, I viewed it as 100% a little baby and I basically treated my wife like she was the most fragile object in existence. I was not reasonable. I understand why someone would feel that way. I would have been unbelievably devastated if she miscarried after 7 weeks. I think the crucial difference is that I would not hold people to the way I feel. Despite the way I felt at 6 weeks, I don't think I have the right to make other people feel that way.
|
United States42490 Posts
On May 12 2022 13:24 gobbledydook wrote:
Yes, it's true that there exist bad people who are outspoken and influential in the anti abortion movement.
One should also be cognizant of the fact that there are bad people on both sides of the aisle.
I recall seeing a tweet from a progressive saying they'd make love with the draft opinion leaker then go abort the resulting fetus. Horribly insensitive to say the least.
There were also actors who said when Trump won the election in 2016, publicly, that they'd like to kill him.
Strangely it seems the zeal of gatekeeping objectionable speech only extends to the other side.
Any moral person should recognize the ethical case for killing Trump. The man is generally responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths and is personally responsible for sadistic policies like the child separations at the border. Had one of those actors had the follow through to commit the world would be a much better place. Are we really pretending that we’re meant to care about the lives of evil people? I’d shed the same number of tears for Trump as I would Putin.
|
If you really think abortion is killing a baby you probably shouldn't make exceptions.
|
Are there any surveys on how pro-lifers stand on other topics such as welfare and especially financial support for single mothers? Admittedly, I am guilty of assuming the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers take a stance on this issue which does not fit particularly well into their belief system as a whole.
Not that I think a consistent belief system is something many people strive for at all. It’s more like our morals are based on a weird mixture of familial, societal, educational values and lastly a good chunk of political propaganda, which this issue largely falls into in my opinion. Thereby, our beliefs are inconsistent by default, and it would take quite some effort to challenge these and deduce consistent morals.
|
On May 12 2022 14:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2022 13:24 gobbledydook wrote:
Yes, it's true that there exist bad people who are outspoken and influential in the anti abortion movement.
One should also be cognizant of the fact that there are bad people on both sides of the aisle.
I recall seeing a tweet from a progressive saying they'd make love with the draft opinion leaker then go abort the resulting fetus. Horribly insensitive to say the least.
There were also actors who said when Trump won the election in 2016, publicly, that they'd like to kill him.
Strangely it seems the zeal of gatekeeping objectionable speech only extends to the other side. Any moral person should recognize the ethical case for killing Trump. The man is generally responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths and is personally responsible for sadistic policies like the child separations at the border. Had one of those actors had the follow through to commit the world would be a much better place. Are we really pretending that we’re meant to care about the lives of evil people? I’d shed the same number of tears for Trump as I would Putin.
I rest my case.
If the argument is yes, we should be calling for the murder of our political opponents, there's no basis for discussion at all.
|
On May 12 2022 17:15 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2022 14:51 KwarK wrote:On May 12 2022 13:24 gobbledydook wrote:
Yes, it's true that there exist bad people who are outspoken and influential in the anti abortion movement.
One should also be cognizant of the fact that there are bad people on both sides of the aisle.
I recall seeing a tweet from a progressive saying they'd make love with the draft opinion leaker then go abort the resulting fetus. Horribly insensitive to say the least.
There were also actors who said when Trump won the election in 2016, publicly, that they'd like to kill him.
Strangely it seems the zeal of gatekeeping objectionable speech only extends to the other side. Any moral person should recognize the ethical case for killing Trump. The man is generally responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths and is personally responsible for sadistic policies like the child separations at the border. Had one of those actors had the follow through to commit the world would be a much better place. Are we really pretending that we’re meant to care about the lives of evil people? I’d shed the same number of tears for Trump as I would Putin. I rest my case. If the argument is yes, we should be calling for the murder of our political opponents, there's no basis for discussion at all.
I don't think that's fair. I'm sure he'd also make the same case for Obama who is also generally responsible for countless deaths. He also talked about using hand grenades to freshen up the supreme court after each election and the Supreme Court has at least 3 progressive justices as well. So I don't think he's for murder of political opponents as much as he is just for murdering people in government on both sides of the aisle.
|
Northern Ireland24940 Posts
On May 12 2022 17:28 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2022 17:15 gobbledydook wrote:On May 12 2022 14:51 KwarK wrote:On May 12 2022 13:24 gobbledydook wrote:
Yes, it's true that there exist bad people who are outspoken and influential in the anti abortion movement.
One should also be cognizant of the fact that there are bad people on both sides of the aisle.
I recall seeing a tweet from a progressive saying they'd make love with the draft opinion leaker then go abort the resulting fetus. Horribly insensitive to say the least.
There were also actors who said when Trump won the election in 2016, publicly, that they'd like to kill him.
Strangely it seems the zeal of gatekeeping objectionable speech only extends to the other side. Any moral person should recognize the ethical case for killing Trump. The man is generally responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths and is personally responsible for sadistic policies like the child separations at the border. Had one of those actors had the follow through to commit the world would be a much better place. Are we really pretending that we’re meant to care about the lives of evil people? I’d shed the same number of tears for Trump as I would Putin. I rest my case. If the argument is yes, we should be calling for the murder of our political opponents, there's no basis for discussion at all. I don't think that's fair. I'm sure he'd also make the same case for Obama who is also generally responsible for countless deaths. He also talked about using hand grenades to freshen up the supreme court after each election and the Supreme Court has at least 3 progressive justices as well. So I don't think he's for murder of political opponents as much as he is just for murdering people in government on both sides of the aisle.
Some people just want to watch the world burn.
|
Northern Ireland24940 Posts
On May 12 2022 12:00 Introvert wrote:
You people have no idea what you are talking about and it shows. If it doesn't happen through a government program (which, spoiler, we do have btw) then it doesn't exist. And to top it off, you aren't even interested. Sad. You are all 10x more mean-spirited than the people you hate.
I don’t have any particular truck with pro-life folks in general, know plenty who are considerably better people than me.
It’s a frustration with this unholy alliance of Trumpian politics and evangelical activism that are the thin edge of the wedge that people are reacting against, plus some worst case scenario hypotheticals.
I can only really go off discussions I’ve had, crudely crammed together and summarised below.
Even in the case of rape or incest? - I’m pro-life and that is still life, although some would make exceptions here (Unpalatable, but consistent)
Should taxes be raised to help support mothers with unwanted children? - Generally no, variants on taking personal responsibility. Some think adoption can handle that by transferring the burden to those who can afford, others think assistance should be offered but via personal/private charity.
Should government resources be expanded to collect child support from those liable/prosecute shirkers - Not high on the priority list, and some essentially say it’s the woman’s fault for picking partner’s badly, but when pressed most did think this was fair enough. Few would countenance a tax increase for this, but that was generally along the ‘government should be big enough to do this already’ lines
|
Northern Ireland24940 Posts
On May 12 2022 16:04 smille wrote:
Are there any surveys on how pro-lifers stand on other topics such as welfare and especially financial support for single mothers? Admittedly, I am guilty of assuming the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers take a stance on this issue which does not fit particularly well into their belief system as a whole.
Not that I think a consistent belief system is something many people strive for at all. It’s more like our morals are based on a weird mixture of familial, societal, educational values and lastly a good chunk of political propaganda, which this issue largely falls into in my opinion. Thereby, our beliefs are inconsistent by default, and it would take quite some effort to challenge these and deduce consistent morals.
Show me a fully consistent human and I’ll show you an android (hey that would be pretty cool actually)
There are too many intersecting parts, how we want to behave on a personal level, how we want peers to behave and how wider society should be structured for there not to be some friction between the cogs.
As with media and the impossibility of being truly unbiased, so it is with consistency of views. That’s not to say that there isn’t considerable variance in how inconsistent some personal belief systems are compared to others
It would be interesting to see the comparative data on attitudes there for sure, I’m sure it exists somewhere, as most things do somewhere on the internet.
|
On May 12 2022 12:00 Introvert wrote:
You people have no idea what you are talking about and it shows. If it doesn't happen through a government program (which, spoiler, we do have btw) then it doesn't exist. And to top it off, you aren't even interested. Sad. You are all 10x more mean-spirited than the people you hate.
Nah, I just think you have the right to feel how you feel about an issue, and you have the right to decide for yourself how to handle it. And so people shouldn't tell you how to handle it, because that's your business.
Similarly, I think anyone who's pregnant will 100% have their own feelings and concerns, and will do their own mental, moral, and emotional calculus about what to do in their situation. And that it is their own damn business what to do about it. You don't have to agree with it. Nobody asked you.
But sure, go ahead, throw out blanket accusations of grandstanding and hate, as you advocate a religious minority foisting their narrow view on the rest of the country, eliminating their right to believe, feel, and decide for themselves, just so you can have a little warm-and-fuzzy. You're right, the Christian Right are the real victims here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
