3 ms·

> The belief that there's an "innocent third party" involved in abortion is a vreligious belief; I don't see why the court would enforce that but not other reli

> The belief that there's an "innocent third party" involved in abortion is a vreligious belief; I don't see why the court would enforce that but not other religious beliefs I think you missed my point on this, i was speaking in terms of things that drive they activist attitudes, not any specific legal distinction. as belorn said in their comment to you, in certain legal cases we consider the unborn child as a person. You don’t have this sort of strange legal dichotomy with a innocent third party with contraception or gay marriage

ineptech 4y ago
I understand where you're coming from, but the position that religious fundamentalist activists aren't particularly interested in keeping gays from marrying would seem to be contradicted by their behavior over the last two decades. edit to add: and most of the bible verses they quote to support that view also condemn divorce and sex outside of wedlock, so forgive us for not knowing what is and isn't in danger. You make a persuasive argument that we should be more concerned than we think we should.
- kcplate 4y ago
  > keeping gays from marrying would seem to be contradicted by their behavior over the last two decades. Sure, but taking a position to prevent something from becoming legally recognized requires far less effort and commitment than taking something presently legal and making it illegal. Abortion was an outlier because there was a tangible victim to rally around in the pro-life activist’s eyes. There simply isn’t a tangible victim they can point to for gay marriage and contraception. Those issues center around behavior they might regard as sinful, but in their eyes the sinner is the only one to suffer. People may not approve…but will they care enough to work against them? I don’t think so. I know a lot of folks who are loudly pro-life, but I can only think of perhaps one that might actively work against gay marriage, and none that would have a strong opinion at all regarding contraception
  - ineptech 4y ago
    Er, did you read the news between like 2005 and 2015? Opposition to gay marriage was fairly prominent. It certainly seems to have died down since then, but I would've said the same thing about the pro-life movement until this week. I don't think the view from within our bubbles is a good way to measure these things. For example, did you realize that "pro-life" was a minority view among evangelicals, before I posted that poll? I sure didn't. As for the "victim," the most effective way we know of to reduce the number of abortions is giving young people easy access to contraception, and AFAICT very few pro-lifers are in favor of that. I think it's a mistake to think this is only or even primarily about the fetus.
    - kcplate 4y ago
      > Er, did you read the news between like 2005 and 2015? Opposition to gay marriage was fairly prominent. I didn’t dispute that. I said specifically that it’s easier to work against something that is currently not legal becoming legal. > It certainly seems to have died down since then Because…it’s now legal. > is giving young people easy access to contraception, and AFAICT very few pro-lifers are in favor of that They may not be in favor of it, but it’s legal for young people to use contraceptives, and has been for a long time and there is no where near the passion against it as there was for abortion. However, when you say “easy access” do you mean “free and government supplied”? That is wholly a different argument that has a more “taxpayer support of discretionary human behavior” driver against it.
      - ineptech 4y ago
        > there is no where near the passion against [legal access to contraception] I don't think you've internalized the thing that started this conversation. This is not a victory for the pro-life movement! The pro-life movement has never been less popular, even among evangelicals. In the battle to convince Americans of their cause, they have lost by any measure. Roe was overturned not by "passion" but by a handful of ethically flexible judges. If they can do that with one unpopular thing, they can do it with a second and a third. > However, when you say “easy access” do you mean “free and government supplied”? Yes, but not as an ideological matter, just because that's the most straightforward way to implement policies. In general, "I support policy X" means "I want tax money to be spent on X". That's how governments do things, by spending money. If you don't want to be involved I'm sure we can fund it privately, it's not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things. But it's not clear why would you be against spending tax money to prevent abortions, but okay with spending money to jail the women who've had them. If this were actually about preventing abortions and not punishing sin, it wouldn't matter.

ineptech 4y ago

I understand where you're coming from, but the position that religious fundamentalist activists aren't particularly interested in keeping gays from marrying would seem to be contradicted by their behavior over the last two decades. edit to add: and most of the bible verses they quote to support that view also condemn divorce and sex outside of wedlock, so forgive us for not knowing what is and isn't in danger. You make a persuasive argument that we should be more concerned than we think we should.

kcplate 4y ago
> keeping gays from marrying would seem to be contradicted by their behavior over the last two decades. Sure, but taking a position to prevent something from becoming legally recognized requires far less effort and commitment than taking something presently legal and making it illegal. Abortion was an outlier because there was a tangible victim to rally around in the pro-life activist’s eyes. There simply isn’t a tangible victim they can point to for gay marriage and contraception. Those issues center around behavior they might regard as sinful, but in their eyes the sinner is the only one to suffer. People may not approve…but will they care enough to work against them? I don’t think so. I know a lot of folks who are loudly pro-life, but I can only think of perhaps one that might actively work against gay marriage, and none that would have a strong opinion at all regarding contraception
- ineptech 4y ago
  Er, did you read the news between like 2005 and 2015? Opposition to gay marriage was fairly prominent. It certainly seems to have died down since then, but I would've said the same thing about the pro-life movement until this week. I don't think the view from within our bubbles is a good way to measure these things. For example, did you realize that "pro-life" was a minority view among evangelicals, before I posted that poll? I sure didn't. As for the "victim," the most effective way we know of to reduce the number of abortions is giving young people easy access to contraception, and AFAICT very few pro-lifers are in favor of that. I think it's a mistake to think this is only or even primarily about the fetus.
  - kcplate 4y ago
    > Er, did you read the news between like 2005 and 2015? Opposition to gay marriage was fairly prominent. I didn’t dispute that. I said specifically that it’s easier to work against something that is currently not legal becoming legal. > It certainly seems to have died down since then Because…it’s now legal. > is giving young people easy access to contraception, and AFAICT very few pro-lifers are in favor of that They may not be in favor of it, but it’s legal for young people to use contraceptives, and has been for a long time and there is no where near the passion against it as there was for abortion. However, when you say “easy access” do you mean “free and government supplied”? That is wholly a different argument that has a more “taxpayer support of discretionary human behavior” driver against it.
    - ineptech 4y ago
      > there is no where near the passion against [legal access to contraception] I don't think you've internalized the thing that started this conversation. This is not a victory for the pro-life movement! The pro-life movement has never been less popular, even among evangelicals. In the battle to convince Americans of their cause, they have lost by any measure. Roe was overturned not by "passion" but by a handful of ethically flexible judges. If they can do that with one unpopular thing, they can do it with a second and a third. > However, when you say “easy access” do you mean “free and government supplied”? Yes, but not as an ideological matter, just because that's the most straightforward way to implement policies. In general, "I support policy X" means "I want tax money to be spent on X". That's how governments do things, by spending money. If you don't want to be involved I'm sure we can fund it privately, it's not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things. But it's not clear why would you be against spending tax money to prevent abortions, but okay with spending money to jail the women who've had them. If this were actually about preventing abortions and not punishing sin, it wouldn't matter.