4 ms·

> It's shrouded in hypocracy. You're misunderstanding me here (and I think this is the crux of a lot of "liberal" misfire on this and other issues): I don't th

> It's shrouded in hypocracy. You're misunderstanding me here (and I think this is the crux of a lot of "liberal" misfire on this and other issues): I don't think they're hypocrites, I think they're operating on different axioms from me (and probably you) and their views are entirely self-consistent. Absolutely reprehensible axioms to me, but they're not idiots. There is a minor hypocrisy in framing, but it's not really important and you never have to talk long before the real axioms come along. Just look at this subthread's dissenting views and find the cases where people subtly or overtly admit that "life" is relative, and the innocence of the child is key. Then consider: innocent compared to who? They do not believe that people have a right to life. They believe innocent people have a right to life. Once you understand that, what they say makes more sense. The mother who has a child out of wedlock (rarely will they consider the possibility a married person might need or want an abortion) and the man in your house demanding food have a thing in common: they both broke a rule considered sacrosanct and they both "knew what they were doing had consequences" (never mind broken condoms, hormonal birth control not working for medical reasons, let alone more obvious things like rape). It's not hypocrisy. Most people who fall on the side of "pro-life" arguments believe these things for reasons that make sense to them, and not always for religious reasons.

orthecreedence 4y ago
Thanks for explaining, I think I understand your viewpoint a bit better now. I still think it's somewhat hypocritical that they want the baby to be born at all costs but many of them do not want public services to help single mothers. And I've seen first-hand how single mothers are treated in churches, so pushing church as a solution is not a viable workaround.
- stormbrew 4y ago
  Part of the conservative worldview is just so deeply tied into the idea of "deserving," both in a good and bad sense, that it interferes with the value of harm reduction. If a single mother struggles it's because she deserves it. If her child suffers for that struggle it's her fault. So long as there's something or someone to blame, you can ignore the question of how you could have prevented the problem in the first place. In fact, if you provide her support, you might be rewarding her infidelity. And then people will perceive that as a reasonable thing to do and more people will do it and then and then and then.... But the important thing is that she didn't "sin" by "killing the baby". If the baby dies after it's born, it's also her fault. Like I said, there's no hypocrisy there. Being a hypocrite isn't the worst thing someone can be. It's entirely possible to have a perfectly (or as perfectly as humans are capable of) self-consistent worldview that is also incredibly cruel. I think a lot of people have lost sight of that. At some point people started to believe that conservativism was about "preserving the past" but that's subtly wrong. It's about "preserving hierarchies". Recognizing that all people are worthy of life is contrary to the idea that some people deserve what's coming to them.
  - orthecreedence 4y ago
    I have to say, you've shifted my view on the issue a bit. I find your analysis very interesting. I've not viewed it in terms of deserving, but what you said makes sense.

orthecreedence 4y ago

Thanks for explaining, I think I understand your viewpoint a bit better now. I still think it's somewhat hypocritical that they want the baby to be born at all costs but many of them do not want public services to help single mothers. And I've seen first-hand how single mothers are treated in churches, so pushing church as a solution is not a viable workaround.

stormbrew 4y ago
Part of the conservative worldview is just so deeply tied into the idea of "deserving," both in a good and bad sense, that it interferes with the value of harm reduction. If a single mother struggles it's because she deserves it. If her child suffers for that struggle it's her fault. So long as there's something or someone to blame, you can ignore the question of how you could have prevented the problem in the first place. In fact, if you provide her support, you might be rewarding her infidelity. And then people will perceive that as a reasonable thing to do and more people will do it and then and then and then.... But the important thing is that she didn't "sin" by "killing the baby". If the baby dies after it's born, it's also her fault. Like I said, there's no hypocrisy there. Being a hypocrite isn't the worst thing someone can be. It's entirely possible to have a perfectly (or as perfectly as humans are capable of) self-consistent worldview that is also incredibly cruel. I think a lot of people have lost sight of that. At some point people started to believe that conservativism was about "preserving the past" but that's subtly wrong. It's about "preserving hierarchies". Recognizing that all people are worthy of life is contrary to the idea that some people deserve what's coming to them.
- orthecreedence 4y ago
  I have to say, you've shifted my view on the issue a bit. I find your analysis very interesting. I've not viewed it in terms of deserving, but what you said makes sense.