|
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 |
|
|
United States42008 Posts
On August 05 2022 01:14 Husyelt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2022 00:43 KwarK wrote:On August 04 2022 18:02 Velr wrote:On August 04 2022 03:20 JimmiC wrote:On August 04 2022 02:52 Velr wrote:
Many conservatives plain think abortion is murder. I think this is a ridiculous stance but if your totally convinced that this is the case, anything but a nation wide ban is not enough. Why? Bans do not make the practice go away, most data says it increases. If you wanted to reduce abortions you would have too implement policy that worked to reduce it, like education access to contraception and a whole host of other ones. It is all about getting to punish people, nothing to do with protecting lives. You are just going to have more fetuses aborted with the added bonus of more mother injured and killed. None of your arguments hold any candle against someone that truely thinks abortion is murder. If someone truely believes this, circumstances don't matter (or only in very, very few very niche cases). I agree with everything you wrote, but as long as you don't convince people that abortion isn't murder (or at least can agree on a deadline later than conception until a fetus counts as human) none of them work. On the bright side, Kansas shows that plenty of republican/conservative voters don't actually believe this (but for some reason like the rethoric, I guess). People don’t genuinely believe fetuses are human lives. Not a one of them. They claim to in a performative way as part of cultural virtue signaling but if you held a baby and a freezer of embryos over a cliff and made them choose which you dropped you’re dropping the freezer, no matter how many embryos are in it. They’re lying. That’s why none of the “if you were genuinely pro-life you’d want better sex ed and after birth resources” arguments never get anywhere. They’re not genuinely pro life. Being pro life is a cultural statement that has been artificially created by a political movement as a way of signaling their membership of a group (or more importantly these days, their non membership of another group). They don’t need consistency because these things aren’t ideas that can be incompatible to them, they’re just words. They can be anti union and pro worker. Pro war and pro soldiers. Pro life and anti welfare. Pro capitalism and anti corporations. You can’t take them at their word, if you try you’ll go insane working it all out. Uh, as someone who was once “pro-life” , Christian etc, it’s very much about fetuses are human life. It’s almost guaranteed in their minds. That fetus will be a baby and ending that kills the baby! So > murder! It’s the biggest thought killer. They can’t get over that idea. And while yes, it’s pure rhetoric and artificial, it’s become real. Lie made flesh. Once I could see from a woman’s POV that a woman or girls life might and should hold more sway over the fetus, that’s when I started to change my view. But until then “pro lifers” really do believe a fetus is a baby. Miscarriages are only up to God or whatever mental gymnastics you want. If 50 years ago church pastors and priests said “life begins at first breath as it says in the bible”, we likely wouldn’t be here now.
No, it’s just not. It’s about the words “abortion is murder” and “unborn babies are humans”. They’re just mouth noises. I’m not saying they don’t make those mouth noises over and over, clearly they do, I’m saying we shouldn’t mistake those noises for an expression of a belief system.
No pro-lifer anywhere is saving a freezer of embryos over a baby. They’re just not. There is no pro-life belief system behind the noises. They just like the way that making those noises makes them feel when they’re in a group of people who make similar noises. It’s like being at a gig and dancing, it’s a social bonding thing.
|
On August 05 2022 01:50 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2022 01:44 BlackJack wrote:On August 05 2022 00:43 KwarK wrote:On August 04 2022 18:02 Velr wrote:On August 04 2022 03:20 JimmiC wrote:On August 04 2022 02:52 Velr wrote:
Many conservatives plain think abortion is murder. I think this is a ridiculous stance but if your totally convinced that this is the case, anything but a nation wide ban is not enough. Why? Bans do not make the practice go away, most data says it increases. If you wanted to reduce abortions you would have too implement policy that worked to reduce it, like education access to contraception and a whole host of other ones. It is all about getting to punish people, nothing to do with protecting lives. You are just going to have more fetuses aborted with the added bonus of more mother injured and killed. None of your arguments hold any candle against someone that truely thinks abortion is murder. If someone truely believes this, circumstances don't matter (or only in very, very few very niche cases). I agree with everything you wrote, but as long as you don't convince people that abortion isn't murder (or at least can agree on a deadline later than conception until a fetus counts as human) none of them work. On the bright side, Kansas shows that plenty of republican/conservative voters don't actually believe this (but for some reason like the rethoric, I guess). People don’t genuinely believe fetuses are human lives. Not a one of them. They claim to in a performative way as part of cultural virtue signaling but if you held a baby and a freezer of embryos over a cliff and made them choose which you dropped you’re dropping the freezer, no matter how many embryos are in it. They’re lying. That’s why none of the “if you were genuinely pro-life you’d want better sex ed and after birth resources” arguments never get anywhere. They’re not genuinely pro life. Being pro life is a cultural statement that has been artificially created by a political movement as a way of signaling their membership of a group (or more importantly these days, their non membership of another group). They don’t need consistency because these things aren’t ideas that can be incompatible to them, they’re just words. They can be anti union and pro worker. Pro war and pro soldiers. Pro life and anti welfare. Pro capitalism and anti corporations. You can’t take them at their word, if you try you’ll go insane working it all out. What? I think almost everyone agrees that a fetus is a human life at some point, which is why every country bans terminating a pregnancy at some point. Personally I never understood why everyone that is pro-life has to believe life begins at conception and everyone that is pro-choice has to believe it doesn't begin at conception. Personally I think life begins at conception but I'm still pro choice. I just think the right to bodily autonomy is more important than a young fetus's right to life. I don't care for getting bogged down in the "when does life begin" argument because it's irrelevant to my position but certainly the "life begins at conception" side has infinitely more rationality behind their stance than the "life begins once the fetus emerges from the vagina as if it were a magical portal into our world" side. Most people are somewhere in between the two. How does one be prochoice and vote for a party who top 3 (if not 1) policy goals is baning abortion and then going after contraception and so on after?
For some people, being pro choice is very important for them, But they wouldn’t be voting Republicans anyway.
To take the argument to the extreme, let’s say I don’t like hot dogs, and I just saw this candidate eating a hot dog on TV. Sure, I don’t like seeing this candidate support hot dogs, but ultimately it’s quite low on the list of things I consider when voting, so it probably won’t matter.
So. As you can see, agreeing or disagreeing about something, and that being a reason to vote in a certain way, are not necessarily correlated. They may just value other things more, but if you ask them about a specific issue they will have an opinion.
|
|
|
On August 05 2022 01:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2022 01:44 BlackJack wrote:On August 05 2022 00:43 KwarK wrote:On August 04 2022 18:02 Velr wrote:On August 04 2022 03:20 JimmiC wrote:On August 04 2022 02:52 Velr wrote:
Many conservatives plain think abortion is murder. I think this is a ridiculous stance but if your totally convinced that this is the case, anything but a nation wide ban is not enough. Why? Bans do not make the practice go away, most data says it increases. If you wanted to reduce abortions you would have too implement policy that worked to reduce it, like education access to contraception and a whole host of other ones. It is all about getting to punish people, nothing to do with protecting lives. You are just going to have more fetuses aborted with the added bonus of more mother injured and killed. None of your arguments hold any candle against someone that truely thinks abortion is murder. If someone truely believes this, circumstances don't matter (or only in very, very few very niche cases). I agree with everything you wrote, but as long as you don't convince people that abortion isn't murder (or at least can agree on a deadline later than conception until a fetus counts as human) none of them work. On the bright side, Kansas shows that plenty of republican/conservative voters don't actually believe this (but for some reason like the rethoric, I guess). People don’t genuinely believe fetuses are human lives. Not a one of them. They claim to in a performative way as part of cultural virtue signaling but if you held a baby and a freezer of embryos over a cliff and made them choose which you dropped you’re dropping the freezer, no matter how many embryos are in it. They’re lying. That’s why none of the “if you were genuinely pro-life you’d want better sex ed and after birth resources” arguments never get anywhere. They’re not genuinely pro life. Being pro life is a cultural statement that has been artificially created by a political movement as a way of signaling their membership of a group (or more importantly these days, their non membership of another group). They don’t need consistency because these things aren’t ideas that can be incompatible to them, they’re just words. They can be anti union and pro worker. Pro war and pro soldiers. Pro life and anti welfare. Pro capitalism and anti corporations. You can’t take them at their word, if you try you’ll go insane working it all out. What? I think almost everyone agrees that a fetus is a human life at some point, which is why every country bans terminating a pregnancy at some point. Personally I never understood why everyone that is pro-life has to believe life begins at conception and everyone that is pro-choice has to believe it doesn't begin at conception. Personally I think life begins at conception but I'm still pro choice. I just think the right to bodily autonomy is more important than a young fetus's right to life. I don't care for getting bogged down in the "when does life begin" argument because it's irrelevant to my position but certainly the "life begins at conception" side has infinitely more rationality behind their stance than the "life begins once the fetus emerges from the vagina as if it were a magical portal into our world" side. Most people are somewhere in between the two. Obviously a woman in active labour isn’t the subject under discussion here and nobody thinks that’s the cutoff.
You should be more precise then because that's still the definition of a fetus
|
|
|
United States42008 Posts
On August 05 2022 03:00 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2022 01:48 KwarK wrote:On August 05 2022 01:44 BlackJack wrote:On August 05 2022 00:43 KwarK wrote:On August 04 2022 18:02 Velr wrote:On August 04 2022 03:20 JimmiC wrote:On August 04 2022 02:52 Velr wrote:
Many conservatives plain think abortion is murder. I think this is a ridiculous stance but if your totally convinced that this is the case, anything but a nation wide ban is not enough. Why? Bans do not make the practice go away, most data says it increases. If you wanted to reduce abortions you would have too implement policy that worked to reduce it, like education access to contraception and a whole host of other ones. It is all about getting to punish people, nothing to do with protecting lives. You are just going to have more fetuses aborted with the added bonus of more mother injured and killed. None of your arguments hold any candle against someone that truely thinks abortion is murder. If someone truely believes this, circumstances don't matter (or only in very, very few very niche cases). I agree with everything you wrote, but as long as you don't convince people that abortion isn't murder (or at least can agree on a deadline later than conception until a fetus counts as human) none of them work. On the bright side, Kansas shows that plenty of republican/conservative voters don't actually believe this (but for some reason like the rethoric, I guess). People don’t genuinely believe fetuses are human lives. Not a one of them. They claim to in a performative way as part of cultural virtue signaling but if you held a baby and a freezer of embryos over a cliff and made them choose which you dropped you’re dropping the freezer, no matter how many embryos are in it. They’re lying. That’s why none of the “if you were genuinely pro-life you’d want better sex ed and after birth resources” arguments never get anywhere. They’re not genuinely pro life. Being pro life is a cultural statement that has been artificially created by a political movement as a way of signaling their membership of a group (or more importantly these days, their non membership of another group). They don’t need consistency because these things aren’t ideas that can be incompatible to them, they’re just words. They can be anti union and pro worker. Pro war and pro soldiers. Pro life and anti welfare. Pro capitalism and anti corporations. You can’t take them at their word, if you try you’ll go insane working it all out. What? I think almost everyone agrees that a fetus is a human life at some point, which is why every country bans terminating a pregnancy at some point. Personally I never understood why everyone that is pro-life has to believe life begins at conception and everyone that is pro-choice has to believe it doesn't begin at conception. Personally I think life begins at conception but I'm still pro choice. I just think the right to bodily autonomy is more important than a young fetus's right to life. I don't care for getting bogged down in the "when does life begin" argument because it's irrelevant to my position but certainly the "life begins at conception" side has infinitely more rationality behind their stance than the "life begins once the fetus emerges from the vagina as if it were a magical portal into our world" side. Most people are somewhere in between the two. Obviously a woman in active labour isn’t the subject under discussion here and nobody thinks that’s the cutoff. You should be more precise then because that's still the definition of a fetus
No.
|
On August 05 2022 02:45 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2022 02:34 gobbledydook wrote:On August 05 2022 01:50 JimmiC wrote:On August 05 2022 01:44 BlackJack wrote:On August 05 2022 00:43 KwarK wrote:On August 04 2022 18:02 Velr wrote:On August 04 2022 03:20 JimmiC wrote:On August 04 2022 02:52 Velr wrote:
Many conservatives plain think abortion is murder. I think this is a ridiculous stance but if your totally convinced that this is the case, anything but a nation wide ban is not enough. Why? Bans do not make the practice go away, most data says it increases. If you wanted to reduce abortions you would have too implement policy that worked to reduce it, like education access to contraception and a whole host of other ones. It is all about getting to punish people, nothing to do with protecting lives. You are just going to have more fetuses aborted with the added bonus of more mother injured and killed. None of your arguments hold any candle against someone that truely thinks abortion is murder. If someone truely believes this, circumstances don't matter (or only in very, very few very niche cases). I agree with everything you wrote, but as long as you don't convince people that abortion isn't murder (or at least can agree on a deadline later than conception until a fetus counts as human) none of them work. On the bright side, Kansas shows that plenty of republican/conservative voters don't actually believe this (but for some reason like the rethoric, I guess). People don’t genuinely believe fetuses are human lives. Not a one of them. They claim to in a performative way as part of cultural virtue signaling but if you held a baby and a freezer of embryos over a cliff and made them choose which you dropped you’re dropping the freezer, no matter how many embryos are in it. They’re lying. That’s why none of the “if you were genuinely pro-life you’d want better sex ed and after birth resources” arguments never get anywhere. They’re not genuinely pro life. Being pro life is a cultural statement that has been artificially created by a political movement as a way of signaling their membership of a group (or more importantly these days, their non membership of another group). They don’t need consistency because these things aren’t ideas that can be incompatible to them, they’re just words. They can be anti union and pro worker. Pro war and pro soldiers. Pro life and anti welfare. Pro capitalism and anti corporations. You can’t take them at their word, if you try you’ll go insane working it all out. What? I think almost everyone agrees that a fetus is a human life at some point, which is why every country bans terminating a pregnancy at some point. Personally I never understood why everyone that is pro-life has to believe life begins at conception and everyone that is pro-choice has to believe it doesn't begin at conception. Personally I think life begins at conception but I'm still pro choice. I just think the right to bodily autonomy is more important than a young fetus's right to life. I don't care for getting bogged down in the "when does life begin" argument because it's irrelevant to my position but certainly the "life begins at conception" side has infinitely more rationality behind their stance than the "life begins once the fetus emerges from the vagina as if it were a magical portal into our world" side. Most people are somewhere in between the two. How does one be prochoice and vote for a party who top 3 (if not 1) policy goals is baning abortion and then going after contraception and so on after? For some people, being pro choice is very important for them, But they wouldn’t be voting Republicans anyway. To take the argument to the extreme, let’s say I don’t like hot dogs, and I just saw this candidate eating a hot dog on TV. Sure, I don’t like seeing this candidate support hot dogs, but ultimately it’s quite low on the list of things I consider when voting, so it probably won’t matter. So. As you can see, agreeing or disagreeing about something, and that being a reason to vote in a certain way, are not necessarily correlated. They may just value other things more, but if you ask them about a specific issue they will have an opinion. I understand there is a bunch of issues, but it is hard to fathom having abortion as a non issue. Same with things like gay marriage and other things the supreme court has gone after and will continue to go after. Most of the other shit you have a lot of "both parties are the same". The big major differences right now out side of all the pwn the libs BS. Is these basic but extraordinarily important human right questions. Also, false equivalization to such a drastic extent is not a compelling argument at all. You would have to at least make it about banning hotdogs and putting people in jail who make them or something.
There must be many people like black jack. Believing that life starts at conception yet still pro-choice. It is also my own position. I am pro choice not because i find abortions amazing,it is for other reasons.
And that i think is one of the bigger issues for the pro-choice movement. The fact that abortions itself are not an amazing human feat to be proud of. Its not something that people will hapily root for. Many people who are pro-choice are so more or less reluctantly , accepting it at as a more or less neccesary evil.
It is not a subject that many people will be very pasionate about. The real passion is there on the other side,the pro-life movement. But it is virtually absent on the pro-choice side and this is understandable. Because no matter how you frame it,abortions itself are not a positive thing. And when it comes to voting,it is not on the top of the list of issues for many people. Not only because its a rational position and not a position based on passion,but also because it does not directly effect the lives of many people.
Gay marriage is quiet different from this i think. A marriage is something positive , so it should gather more and more passionate support then something like abortions even from conservative christians. It is a much easier subject to root for then abortions.
The left should recognize this distinction that there is between gay marriage and abortions. One beeing a positive thing in itself and the other beeing a negative thing in itself. If the left goes campaigning on abortion in the upcoming elections then they will lose badly.
|
My take on the logic of the forced birth movement:
American conservative ideology is fundamentally emotional, not logical.
It is driven by fear; fear of change, fear of the outsider, fear of that which is different, etc.
Conservative ideology, by definition, wants to conserve the status quo that they like and only want change insofar as it is changing things that they feel are wrong. This is why every mobilizing conservative issue is a vague culture war issue; abortion, guns, "muh freedom", CRT, transgender issues, etc. all tap into an emotional motivation (usually of fear/disgust), and there really isn't a core issue where conservatism is trying to explicitly, materially improve the lives of the public through logic and empirical evidence. It's all "protecting guns protects our freedoms!" instead of "allowing more people to be armed reduces crime by X percent due to Y". Not only does that data not exist, but the ideology is simply motivated by feelings, not facts laid out in an attempt to actually improve society.
This ties into the abortion issue quite nicely. American conservatism is intensely selfish. It doesn't give two shits about anyone except for the individual and the people they immediately care about (this is also borne out by noting how frequently you can soften a conservative's stance on issues like gay rights or abortion when a close family member has to go through those issues). The abortion issue isn't actually about preserving or helping life; KwarK and a bajillion other people have pointed out the logical inconsistencies on conservative political movements on this. What it's really about is selfish moral grandstanding; it's really easy for forced birthers to supposedly advocate for a group of "people" that are so helpless that they are completely incapable of communicating in any way. This allows them to speak for fetuses without ever being challenged (like they have frequently gotten hit for when trying to speak for POC) and take a moral high ground, patting themselves on the back for standing on an emotionally charged, moral issue.
Because of its simplistic moral nature (to forced birthers at least), abortion has been a highly motivating issue for decades for conservatives. This is why they've pushed it so much for so long; it's easy to rally people around this issue and therefore get them out to vote. It's been pretty well-documented that anger and disapproval are far better turnout motivators than any other emotion.
The left should recognize this distinction that there is between gay marriage and abortions. One beeing a positive thing in itself and the other beeing a negative thing in itself. If the left goes campaigning on abortion in the upcoming elections then they will lose badly.
Pretty much every piece of data that we have shows that the complete opposite is true. Democrats are getting much more motivated due to the abortion issue in the wake of Dobbs, while independents strongly align with Democrats on abortion over Republicans, and Republicans are becoming less motivated since they've won on Roe. This also ties really nicely into my prior point about disapproval being a much better turnout motivator.
|
An abortion being "a negative thing in itself" is for the people who need them to decide, and it's none of your business. Period.
On that note, I think I would add that everyone in the US under the age of 50 has had some Conservative asshole using them as a convenient political football, before they were born or ever had a chance to agree or disagree. My existence as a clump of cells some time ago was used to bludgeon people over the head anytime they wanted or needed an abortion. I don't need your ass speaking for me. I might not even make it! And I sure as hell am not on board with your subjugating garbage.
But yes, there's a very clear reason their arguments aren't rooted in logic or data. And if it is, it's data they don't want to be seen fussing over, like the declining percentage of white or straight people. It's usually just wanting to see people suffer for funsies though.
|
|
|
Sinema has given the green light to the Infrastructure Reduction Act. It means the Democrats will almost certainly pass the clean energy and healthcare spending bill.
|
On August 05 2022 01:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2022 01:14 Husyelt wrote:On August 05 2022 00:43 KwarK wrote:On August 04 2022 18:02 Velr wrote:On August 04 2022 03:20 JimmiC wrote:On August 04 2022 02:52 Velr wrote:
Many conservatives plain think abortion is murder. I think this is a ridiculous stance but if your totally convinced that this is the case, anything but a nation wide ban is not enough. Why? Bans do not make the practice go away, most data says it increases. If you wanted to reduce abortions you would have too implement policy that worked to reduce it, like education access to contraception and a whole host of other ones. It is all about getting to punish people, nothing to do with protecting lives. You are just going to have more fetuses aborted with the added bonus of more mother injured and killed. None of your arguments hold any candle against someone that truely thinks abortion is murder. If someone truely believes this, circumstances don't matter (or only in very, very few very niche cases). I agree with everything you wrote, but as long as you don't convince people that abortion isn't murder (or at least can agree on a deadline later than conception until a fetus counts as human) none of them work. On the bright side, Kansas shows that plenty of republican/conservative voters don't actually believe this (but for some reason like the rethoric, I guess). People don’t genuinely believe fetuses are human lives. Not a one of them. They claim to in a performative way as part of cultural virtue signaling but if you held a baby and a freezer of embryos over a cliff and made them choose which you dropped you’re dropping the freezer, no matter how many embryos are in it. They’re lying. That’s why none of the “if you were genuinely pro-life you’d want better sex ed and after birth resources” arguments never get anywhere. They’re not genuinely pro life. Being pro life is a cultural statement that has been artificially created by a political movement as a way of signaling their membership of a group (or more importantly these days, their non membership of another group). They don’t need consistency because these things aren’t ideas that can be incompatible to them, they’re just words. They can be anti union and pro worker. Pro war and pro soldiers. Pro life and anti welfare. Pro capitalism and anti corporations. You can’t take them at their word, if you try you’ll go insane working it all out. Uh, as someone who was once “pro-life” , Christian etc, it’s very much about fetuses are human life. It’s almost guaranteed in their minds. That fetus will be a baby and ending that kills the baby! So > murder! It’s the biggest thought killer. They can’t get over that idea. And while yes, it’s pure rhetoric and artificial, it’s become real. Lie made flesh. Once I could see from a woman’s POV that a woman or girls life might and should hold more sway over the fetus, that’s when I started to change my view. But until then “pro lifers” really do believe a fetus is a baby. Miscarriages are only up to God or whatever mental gymnastics you want. If 50 years ago church pastors and priests said “life begins at first breath as it says in the bible”, we likely wouldn’t be here now. No, it’s just not. It’s about the words “abortion is murder” and “unborn babies are humans”. They’re just mouth noises. I’m not saying they don’t make those mouth noises over and over, clearly they do, I’m saying we shouldn’t mistake those noises for an expression of a belief system. No pro-lifer anywhere is saving a freezer of embryos over a baby. They’re just not. There is no pro-life belief system behind the noises. They just like the way that making those noises makes them feel when they’re in a group of people who make similar noises. It’s like being at a gig and dancing, it’s a social bonding thing.
Agreed. But I “believed it to be true” at one point. Its religious brainwashing when you boil it down. They have been conditioned to see things in pure black or white.
If they had to choose on the spot for IVF they would say “once it’s in the womb!” Or considering how far removed from reality the right has become, I wouldn’t be surprised if IVF was on the chopping block in a few nutter states. Most pro life seem to be split on the issue. Cognitive dissonance probably doesn’t allow those thoughts to be explored, and the implications
|
On August 05 2022 09:46 NewSunshine wrote:
An abortion being "a negative thing in itself" is for the people who need them to decide, and it's none of your business. Period.
I think you don't quite understand what was meant by that statement. I am prepared to say that no one wants to have an abortion. I am sure that anyone who has an abortion would have preferred to just not be pregnant. The people who need an abortion think that the abortion is better than the alternative. In that way, an abortion is at best the lesser of two evils. But it is not a nice or pleasant thing that anyone looks forward to.
|
On August 05 2022 07:58 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2022 02:45 JimmiC wrote:On August 05 2022 02:34 gobbledydook wrote:On August 05 2022 01:50 JimmiC wrote:On August 05 2022 01:44 BlackJack wrote:On August 05 2022 00:43 KwarK wrote:On August 04 2022 18:02 Velr wrote:On August 04 2022 03:20 JimmiC wrote:On August 04 2022 02:52 Velr wrote:
Many conservatives plain think abortion is murder. I think this is a ridiculous stance but if your totally convinced that this is the case, anything but a nation wide ban is not enough. Why? Bans do not make the practice go away, most data says it increases. If you wanted to reduce abortions you would have too implement policy that worked to reduce it, like education access to contraception and a whole host of other ones. It is all about getting to punish people, nothing to do with protecting lives. You are just going to have more fetuses aborted with the added bonus of more mother injured and killed. None of your arguments hold any candle against someone that truely thinks abortion is murder. If someone truely believes this, circumstances don't matter (or only in very, very few very niche cases). I agree with everything you wrote, but as long as you don't convince people that abortion isn't murder (or at least can agree on a deadline later than conception until a fetus counts as human) none of them work. On the bright side, Kansas shows that plenty of republican/conservative voters don't actually believe this (but for some reason like the rethoric, I guess). People don’t genuinely believe fetuses are human lives. Not a one of them. They claim to in a performative way as part of cultural virtue signaling but if you held a baby and a freezer of embryos over a cliff and made them choose which you dropped you’re dropping the freezer, no matter how many embryos are in it. They’re lying. That’s why none of the “if you were genuinely pro-life you’d want better sex ed and after birth resources” arguments never get anywhere. They’re not genuinely pro life. Being pro life is a cultural statement that has been artificially created by a political movement as a way of signaling their membership of a group (or more importantly these days, their non membership of another group). They don’t need consistency because these things aren’t ideas that can be incompatible to them, they’re just words. They can be anti union and pro worker. Pro war and pro soldiers. Pro life and anti welfare. Pro capitalism and anti corporations. You can’t take them at their word, if you try you’ll go insane working it all out. What? I think almost everyone agrees that a fetus is a human life at some point, which is why every country bans terminating a pregnancy at some point. Personally I never understood why everyone that is pro-life has to believe life begins at conception and everyone that is pro-choice has to believe it doesn't begin at conception. Personally I think life begins at conception but I'm still pro choice. I just think the right to bodily autonomy is more important than a young fetus's right to life. I don't care for getting bogged down in the "when does life begin" argument because it's irrelevant to my position but certainly the "life begins at conception" side has infinitely more rationality behind their stance than the "life begins once the fetus emerges from the vagina as if it were a magical portal into our world" side. Most people are somewhere in between the two. How does one be prochoice and vote for a party who top 3 (if not 1) policy goals is baning abortion and then going after contraception and so on after? For some people, being pro choice is very important for them, But they wouldn’t be voting Republicans anyway. To take the argument to the extreme, let’s say I don’t like hot dogs, and I just saw this candidate eating a hot dog on TV. Sure, I don’t like seeing this candidate support hot dogs, but ultimately it’s quite low on the list of things I consider when voting, so it probably won’t matter. So. As you can see, agreeing or disagreeing about something, and that being a reason to vote in a certain way, are not necessarily correlated. They may just value other things more, but if you ask them about a specific issue they will have an opinion. I understand there is a bunch of issues, but it is hard to fathom having abortion as a non issue. Same with things like gay marriage and other things the supreme court has gone after and will continue to go after. Most of the other shit you have a lot of "both parties are the same". The big major differences right now out side of all the pwn the libs BS. Is these basic but extraordinarily important human right questions. Also, false equivalization to such a drastic extent is not a compelling argument at all. You would have to at least make it about banning hotdogs and putting people in jail who make them or something. There must be many people like black jack. Believing that life starts at conception yet still pro-choice. It is also my own position. I am pro choice not because i find abortions amazing,it is for other reasons. And that i think is one of the bigger issues for the pro-choice movement. The fact that abortions itself are not an amazing human feat to be proud of. Its not something that people will hapily root for. Many people who are pro-choice are so more or less reluctantly , accepting it at as a more or less neccesary evil. It is not a subject that many people will be very pasionate about. The real passion is there on the other side,the pro-life movement. But it is virtually absent on the pro-choice side and this is understandable. Because no matter how you frame it,abortions itself are not a positive thing. And when it comes to voting,it is not on the top of the list of issues for many people. Not only because its a rational position and not a position based on passion,but also because it does not directly effect the lives of many people. Gay marriage is quiet different from this i think. A marriage is something positive , so it should gather more and more passionate support then something like abortions even from conservative christians. It is a much easier subject to root for then abortions. The left should recognize this distinction that there is between gay marriage and abortions. One beeing a positive thing in itself and the other beeing a negative thing in itself. If the left goes campaigning on abortion in the upcoming elections then they will lose badly.
I don't see abortions as evil, necessary or not. They're a tool that result in a net positive increase in people's happiness. To me, that's inherently positive and good.
|
On August 05 2022 17:52 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2022 09:46 NewSunshine wrote:
An abortion being "a negative thing in itself" is for the people who need them to decide, and it's none of your business. Period.
I think you don't quite understand what was meant by that statement. I am prepared to say that no one wants to have an abortion. I am sure that anyone who has an abortion would have preferred to just not be pregnant. The people who need an abortion think that the abortion is better than the alternative. In that way, an abortion is at best the lesser of two evils. But it is not a nice or pleasant thing that anyone looks forward to.
Precisely. Its a medical procedure that has some risk and can have lasting physical and psychological consequnces. Its should be viewed as option of last restor but that option should be there.
|
On August 05 2022 17:52 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2022 09:46 NewSunshine wrote:
An abortion being "a negative thing in itself" is for the people who need them to decide, and it's none of your business. Period.
I think you don't quite understand what was meant by that statement. I am prepared to say that no one wants to have an abortion. I am sure that anyone who has an abortion would have preferred to just not be pregnant. The people who need an abortion think that the abortion is better than the alternative. In that way, an abortion is at best the lesser of two evils. But it is not a nice or pleasant thing that anyone looks forward to.
I am prepared to argue that the only reason you're calling an abortion evil is due to the stigma attached to it. When I got my ligament reattachment operation done on my middle finger I didn't see it as choosing the lesser of two evils. It was a procedure that would improve my quality of life.
|
On August 05 2022 18:41 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2022 17:52 Simberto wrote:On August 05 2022 09:46 NewSunshine wrote:
An abortion being "a negative thing in itself" is for the people who need them to decide, and it's none of your business. Period.
I think you don't quite understand what was meant by that statement. I am prepared to say that no one wants to have an abortion. I am sure that anyone who has an abortion would have preferred to just not be pregnant. The people who need an abortion think that the abortion is better than the alternative. In that way, an abortion is at best the lesser of two evils. But it is not a nice or pleasant thing that anyone looks forward to. I am prepared to argue that the only reason you're calling an abortion evil is due to the stigma attached to it. When I got my ligament reattachment operation done on my middle finger I didn't see it as choosing the lesser of two evils. It was a procedure that would improve my quality of life.
Dunno, i am never enthusiastic about procedures at a doctor. I went do the dentist a while ago, and had to get a small filling. Sure, i chose to get that done, because it is far superior to a tooth ache and potentially losing a tooth in the long term. But it was not a nice or fun thing either. It was something that i would qualify as the lesser of two evils. I would have much preferred for the tooth to simply be healthy and me not needing the dentistry procedure. And there is no social stigma attached to dentistry.
My point is that basically, an abortion sucks. But in some situations, not having the abortion is worse.
Now, being able to get an abortion if necessary, that is a good thing. In the same way that being able to go to the dentist if necessary is a good thing, even if dentistry procedures are generally not something positive that one looks forward to.
|
On August 05 2022 18:48 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2022 18:41 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 05 2022 17:52 Simberto wrote:On August 05 2022 09:46 NewSunshine wrote:
An abortion being "a negative thing in itself" is for the people who need them to decide, and it's none of your business. Period.
I think you don't quite understand what was meant by that statement. I am prepared to say that no one wants to have an abortion. I am sure that anyone who has an abortion would have preferred to just not be pregnant. The people who need an abortion think that the abortion is better than the alternative. In that way, an abortion is at best the lesser of two evils. But it is not a nice or pleasant thing that anyone looks forward to. I am prepared to argue that the only reason you're calling an abortion evil is due to the stigma attached to it. When I got my ligament reattachment operation done on my middle finger I didn't see it as choosing the lesser of two evils. It was a procedure that would improve my quality of life. Dunno, i am never enthusiastic about procedures at a doctor. I went do the dentist a while ago, and had to get a small filling. Sure, i chose to get that done, because it is far superior to a tooth ache and potentially losing a tooth in the long term. But it was not a nice or fun thing either. It was something that i would qualify as the lesser of two evils. I would have much preferred for the tooth to simply be healthy and me not needing the dentistry procedure. And there is no social stigma attached to dentistry. My point is that basically, an abortion sucks. But in some situations, not having the abortion is worse. Now, being able to get an abortion if necessary, that is a good thing. In the same way that being able to go to the dentist if necessary is a good thing, even if dentistry procedures are generally not something positive that one looks forward to.
If the outcome has no bearing on the "evilness" of the choice, then anything that requires a short term loss can be framed as a choice between two evils. Getting an education? Choosing the better of two evils, after all, studying takes effort. Doing exercise? Getting your driver's licence? Eating healthy? Etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
