I think it was a response to how casually human life was being treated. I know there isn't a chance you consider life at inception and I'm not arguing abortion should be blanket banned.
If you can't understand your political opponents thoughts you will constantly be taken by surprise and as we seem to be leaning further and further right that will become increasingly dangerous.
Things can change back just as quickly as they changed in your life time.
The opposing view is a bunch of nonsense, I'm going to be frank.
'Pro-life' but against any and all things that would make raising a child or, shit, being pregnant even marginally easier on the mother. They're against subsidized school lunches for disadvantaged children, they're against subsidized and affordable medical care, they've put forward no ideas or options for families struggling to raise kids or even feed themselves, they're against comprehensive sex education and contraceptives, and - in this case - they're so anti-science they'll pen and pass bills without either understanding or caring about what the implications of their laws will be.
Like it's all a mess of contrarian nonsense that doesn't look like anything but cartoonishly evil when put into practice.
See, when you've explained and shown people just how terrible and hurtful and malicious the consequences of their views are and, rather than acknowledge the harm and alter their views to limit it, they double down, it's kinda hard to come to other conclusion than this being something they're consciously (lots of misogynists) or unconsciously (lots of folks who have been raised as a misogynist but don't realize it) doing.
Because if they did actually care, these laws would be very clearly written with no grey area for situations like this to ensure that no girl or woman is suffering needlessly because a bunch of dudes who still can't find the clitoris think they should be legislating girls and womens bodies. Sure they talk up a big game about the sanctity of life and wanting to preserve life, but the consequences of their actions are fairly consistently in opposition with actually achieving said goal.
And then people like you come in and act like we're the unreasonable people for rightfully calling out the malicious harm these conservatives and their views cause. Without a hint of self awareness.
That motive hasn't been assigned, it's been inferred from their behavior. They don't give a shit about life. They given even less of a shit about the quality of life.
Cases like this in particular demonstrate exactly why their """beliefs""" are horseshit. People who consider late-term pregnancies do so because of serious medical complications. Not because they're Satanic leftist whores who get a rush out of sleeping around so that they can murder their babies in the womb.
Last edited by s_bushido; 2023-02-20 at 01:05 AM.
"Life at inception" is an intentionally dishonest framing, used to cloud the issue;
1> Life doesn't "begin". Life began (apparently) once, some 3.8 billion years back. Propagation since that event has been a continuation of life, not a beginning; living human beings create living gametes which combine to form a living zygote which develops, eventually, into another human being. There is no point in this loop where anything that was not alive suddenly becomes alive.
2> "Conception" is a completely arbitrary point in that sequence, without much to speak for it being a particularly meaningful stage of the process. Thus, hand-wringing over a fertilized ovum when you wouldn't wring those hands over gametes (sperm and ova) is nonsensical, from a secular point of view.
It's not that I "won't consider" it; it's that I have considered it, and looked at every argument I've seen presented for it, and found all of them intellectually insufficient. They're either irrational, religious, or aesthetic. Each of which make reasonable enough grounds for personal choices, but not for endorsing them at the societal level.
Like, I seriously do not care if you have a religious objection. Feel free to not get an abortion, then; that's entirely your choice, nobody's pushing you to abort. If you try and tell someone else to not abort, though, I'm gonna get pretty pissed at the intentional attack on your target's religious freedoms. Which is what you're engaged in, by definition. Harassment and abuse to try and deny others religious freedom.
You're making allegations that I "don't understand their arguments", and I'd really like to know exactly what I'm getting meaningfully wrong, on any of it.If you can't understand your political opponents thoughts you will constantly be taken by surprise and as we seem to be leaning further and further right that will become increasingly dangerous.
I've asked that same question over and over and over again in this and other prior threads, and on other forums, and have gotten either bullshit emotional appeals, special pleading on religious grounds, or attempts to shame me for disagreement. Never an actual, justifiable, secular justification. Literally not once, either directly or in the arguments by any group pushing to oppose abortion.
I can change my mind on things like this. I used to be a lot more in favor of the death penalty, for instance. I used to believe capitalist systems could be reformed meaningfully. And then I looked into my preconceptions, examined them against the arguments brought by others, and amended my views where I deemed it appropriate.
And I repeat; with pro-life, I have never seen an argument that, when you poked at it enough, didn't boil down to "I want women as a class to be subjugated to a greater degree" and/or "I want to enforce my petty religious views on non-believers". Feel free to take another shot. Just be ready for me (and others) to return fire.
Last edited by Endus; 2023-02-20 at 01:23 AM.
Few people can really understand big picture problems. Most can only see the most direct and obvious actions. It's a flaw that is extremely difficult to overcome.
- - - Updated - - -
The people with and against you are not a monolith. Its something to keep in mind.
Most believe the fetus is a living person. You can understand your argument but the flaw in that thinking is that you believe defeating their argument matters. Any politician worth their salt will tell you how folly that is.
My layman's take on it is this. They see the fetus as a person ( the fact you and for that matter I don't is irrelevant). Abortion at least in west I can't speak for anywhere else is seen as to... cold and clinical. I think the middle ground here and yes... with the left reeling from the culture shift you are needing to look for the middle ground is to argue abortion as a means of last resort... or rather then argue it find a way to change the public perception to that.
- - - Updated - - -
"You" is a funny word. My ability to see multiple sides to an issue doesn't automatically include me in any group. I support abortion but I'm sure for reasons you would find abhorrent.
- - - Updated - - -
I mean... that is akin to say anyone who voted for biden is a mod of r/anti work.
There's no argument against abortion that doesn't ultimately end up in either religious baloney or a desire to control women. Even an argument that a fetus has a right to live is ALSO an argument that a woman doesn't have a right to her own body, and must become an incubator for the sake of life. Following that line of thinking, we should start harvesting organs from healthy people to give to those whose lives are in danger because of failing kidneys or livers. After all, if human life is more important than bodily autonomy, that's the obvious conclusion.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"