5 ms·

Of course there is middle ground. For instance, there are plenty of practical approaches that greatly reduce the number of abortions while still supporting wom

Of course there is middle ground. For instance, there are plenty of practical approaches that greatly reduce the number of abortions while still supporting women's rights. But, for some reason, one side of the issue would rather not reduce abortion while still permitting women's choice because that would take away the 'wedge' issue as a partisan political hammer. So they insist on ever more draconian, misogynistic laws to force the wedge deeper and deeper. That's not because it's an unreconcilable issue. Its because they want the issue.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
I agree, but the other side does the same. Why do pro-choice groups oppose holding abortion clinics to the same medical standards as other medical facilities? Because "access" is their political hammer, and they want to keep using the issue.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Why do pro-choice groups oppose holding abortion clinics to the same medical standards as other medical facilities? They don't, in general. They do oppose creating “generally-applicable” standards that have the principal effect of preventing access to abortion services, though.
nobody9999 5y ago
>But, for some reason, one side of the issue would rather not reduce abortion while still permitting women's choice because that would take away the 'wedge' issue as a partisan political hammer. So they insist on ever more draconian, misogynistic laws to force the wedge deeper and deeper. That's not because it's an unreconcilable issue. Its because they want the issue. Except terminations in the US are at their lowest levels[0] since they became legal in 1973. One side says: Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Another side says: Abortion is *literal* murder and women who have them, as well as the doctors who perform them should be imprisoned and/or executed. There is (as I mentioned in another comment on this topic) a significant amount of nuance for most Americans. With a sizable majority supporting safe, legal abortions, but with significant disagreement as to the timing and mechanism(s) of such terminations. Personally, I believe that women (and men, for that matter) should have control over their bodies. Full stop. As for the termination of a pregnancy, that should be up to the individual who is pregnant -- likely (but not necessarily) with input from the other potential parent and/or medical professionals. To put a really fine point on it: If you don't have a functional uterus, shut the fuck up -- it's none of your business. [0] https://apnews.com/article/health-united-states-ap-top-news-ny-state-wire-abortion-7e45fe6f70cf45f1823a45ef9ad2187c https://apnews.com/article/health-united-states-ap-top-news-...
- austinheap 5y ago
  Your stats were really eye opening for me. I’m stunned men still opine on this conversation.
  - mancerayder 5y ago
    Putting aside the obvious debate about autonomy over one's body, need I remind you that men pay child support as well, so they can at least opine.
- Stupulous 5y ago
  >To put a really fine point on it: If you don't have a functional uterus, shut the fuck up -- it's none of your business. I don't really have a position on abortion, but I don't like this point at all. It says too much, I think. Imagine there's a genocide in North Korea. I'm not North Korean, I'm not friends with anyone from North Korea. Does accepting this point mean that I have to accept that genocide in North Korea is none of my business and is above my criticism? And, if not, what distinguishes the two? Should Biden not sign a pro-choice bill because he lacks a uterus and therefore is forbidden from taking a side?
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    I said, a few sentences before the bit you quoted: "Personally, I believe that women (and men, for that matter) should have control over their bodies. Full stop." I believe that should be enough information to answer your question, unless you somehow believe that being mass-murdered is the same thing as having control over one's own body.
    - Stupulous 5y ago
      But a pro-life woman is demanding the same amount of control over others' bodies as a pro-life man, less one. And a pro-choice man is not advocating for any control at all. Your conclusion should be that only pro-choice people should voice their opinions, not people with functional uteri.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

I agree, but the other side does the same. Why do pro-choice groups oppose holding abortion clinics to the same medical standards as other medical facilities? Because "access" is their political hammer, and they want to keep using the issue.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Why do pro-choice groups oppose holding abortion clinics to the same medical standards as other medical facilities? They don't, in general. They do oppose creating “generally-applicable” standards that have the principal effect of preventing access to abortion services, though.

nobody9999 5y ago

>But, for some reason, one side of the issue would rather not reduce abortion while still permitting women's choice because that would take away the 'wedge' issue as a partisan political hammer. So they insist on ever more draconian, misogynistic laws to force the wedge deeper and deeper. That's not because it's an unreconcilable issue. Its because they want the issue. Except terminations in the US are at their lowest levels[0] since they became legal in 1973. One side says: Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Another side says: Abortion is *literal* murder and women who have them, as well as the doctors who perform them should be imprisoned and/or executed. There is (as I mentioned in another comment on this topic) a significant amount of nuance for most Americans. With a sizable majority supporting safe, legal abortions, but with significant disagreement as to the timing and mechanism(s) of such terminations. Personally, I believe that women (and men, for that matter) should have control over their bodies. Full stop. As for the termination of a pregnancy, that should be up to the individual who is pregnant -- likely (but not necessarily) with input from the other potential parent and/or medical professionals. To put a really fine point on it: If you don't have a functional uterus, shut the fuck up -- it's none of your business. [0] https://apnews.com/article/health-united-states-ap-top-news-ny-state-wire-abortion-7e45fe6f70cf45f1823a45ef9ad2187c https://apnews.com/article/health-united-states-ap-top-news-...

austinheap 5y ago
Your stats were really eye opening for me. I’m stunned men still opine on this conversation.
- mancerayder 5y ago
  Putting aside the obvious debate about autonomy over one's body, need I remind you that men pay child support as well, so they can at least opine.
Stupulous 5y ago
>To put a really fine point on it: If you don't have a functional uterus, shut the fuck up -- it's none of your business. I don't really have a position on abortion, but I don't like this point at all. It says too much, I think. Imagine there's a genocide in North Korea. I'm not North Korean, I'm not friends with anyone from North Korea. Does accepting this point mean that I have to accept that genocide in North Korea is none of my business and is above my criticism? And, if not, what distinguishes the two? Should Biden not sign a pro-choice bill because he lacks a uterus and therefore is forbidden from taking a side?
- nobody9999 5y ago
  I said, a few sentences before the bit you quoted: "Personally, I believe that women (and men, for that matter) should have control over their bodies. Full stop." I believe that should be enough information to answer your question, unless you somehow believe that being mass-murdered is the same thing as having control over one's own body.
  - Stupulous 5y ago
    But a pro-life woman is demanding the same amount of control over others' bodies as a pro-life man, less one. And a pro-choice man is not advocating for any control at all. Your conclusion should be that only pro-choice people should voice their opinions, not people with functional uteri.