5 ms·

The comment you’re replying to describes a bait and switch “counseling clinic”. Cf. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/pregnancy-clinics-bait-and-switch/

The comment you’re replying to describes a bait and switch “counseling clinic”. Cf. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/pregnancy-clinics-bait-and-switch/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/pregnancy-clinics-... The moderate pro-life crowd should see this behavior as scummy and denounce it, as it taints their cause. IE take the high road to attaining their goals. Those in support of this behavior, have more deep ethical challenges, and I sincerely hope and believe are not the majority of pro-life voters.. (Using “pro-life” reluctantly here, to avoid distractions) Edit to add: my intent by this comment is to depolarize. It’s frustrating to see child comments from the pro-choice side that don’t take my hint :/ Let’s not engage with the extreme on either side folks, if we want to better understand the opposing points of view. Yes, the loudest voices are often the most extreme, and no the moderates don’t denounce (on both sides!), but we can try to do better on our beloved HN.

tablespoon 4y ago
> The moderate pro-life crowd should see this behavior as scummy and denounce it, as it taints their cause. IE take the high road to attaining their goals. Why? To someone who thinks abortion is the murder of babies, what you advocate is priority inversion error. Your idea is a lot like saying the police in Uvalde shouldn't have gone in and (eventually) shot the school shooter, rather they should have "take[n] the high road to attaining their goals" and just talked to him until he stopped of his own accord.
- CoffeeOnWrite 4y ago
  Police are peace officers with sworn duty bestowed lawfully and transparently by the state and supported by agreed upon best practices. I see no ethical qualms with courageously taking out the shooter. Private citizens conspiring to trick other private citizens, is not in the same ballpark or league.
- esyir 4y ago
  Except that (virtually) nobody on the right truly believes that it's full fledged baby murder. They believe it's bad, but clearly, from their response, it's not anywhere near as bad as that. If your government/heathcare/someOtherOrg was grinding up babies post birth at scale, or any equivalent, I'd expect the response to be more riots and bombs, and less "Let's campaign for fifty odd years to get the capability to ban it in a number of states". Edit: Response to "of course they do": I strongly disbelieve that, simply because of their response There were ~600k abortions in 2021. If the right truly believed in their hearts that an abortion is directly equal to a murder, they'd basically be giving a pathetic response to what would be an absolutely "Final Solution" level crime. Estimates of the Jewish death toll were ~6 million and was responded to by full fledged, hot war. If their response to a holocaust every 10 years was "we'll slowly eke forward over 50Y, and manage to get bans in just half the country", that's a hell of a pathetic response.
  - gjsman-1000 4y ago
    Google "March for Life." Its massive (rivaling the "Women's March" a few years back), has happened every year for nearly 50 years at DC, and always has a media blackout talking about it. And everyone there believes without a doubt it is murder. Also the Gen Z presence is massive at these marches, much more so than the "Women's March" which is interesting.
  - Grustaf 4y ago
    > Except that (virtually) nobody on the right truly believes that it's full fledged baby murder Why would you think that? Clearly almost everyone that is against abortion believes that, that's the whole point. Even most people who are in favour of abortion would consider it at least close to murder if say an abusive husband beats his pregnant wife, killing the baby. The only difference there is that the mother wanted the child to live, how can that have bearing on whether it's murder or not?
    - orwin 4y ago
      https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-05-17-mn-58803-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-05-17-mn-58803-... It's not as clear as you seem to think. I would agree with the second court here. Prior to 25weeks this shouldn't be a murder. But if the action have an effect on the woman ability to bear children in the future, this should be considered as aggravating circumstances. And there is no case of abusing husbands causing miscarriage in the US. Even though i found study citing that 27% of miscarriage are caused by wife beaters in india, i couldn't find the statistics or any case in the US.
      - Grustaf 4y ago
        I'm saying "most people consider", I am not talking about legal rulings.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    >> Why? To someone who thinks abortion is the murder of babies, what you advocate is priority inversion error. > Except that (virtually) nobody on the right truly believes that it's full fledged baby murder. They believe it's bad, but clearly, from their response, it's not anywhere near as bad as that. So? That doesn't affect my point at all. They don't have to think abortion is "full fledged baby murder" for what was advocated up-thread to be a priority inversion error. They just have to think of it as being more wrong than whatever persuasion tactics the "counseling clinics" use. Given that all but the most extreme persuasion tactics themselves typically rate from "not wrong" to "mildly wrong/annoying," that's not a hard bar to pass.

tablespoon 4y ago

> The moderate pro-life crowd should see this behavior as scummy and denounce it, as it taints their cause. IE take the high road to attaining their goals. Why? To someone who thinks abortion is the murder of babies, what you advocate is priority inversion error. Your idea is a lot like saying the police in Uvalde shouldn't have gone in and (eventually) shot the school shooter, rather they should have "take[n] the high road to attaining their goals" and just talked to him until he stopped of his own accord.

CoffeeOnWrite 4y ago
Police are peace officers with sworn duty bestowed lawfully and transparently by the state and supported by agreed upon best practices. I see no ethical qualms with courageously taking out the shooter. Private citizens conspiring to trick other private citizens, is not in the same ballpark or league.
esyir 4y ago
Except that (virtually) nobody on the right truly believes that it's full fledged baby murder. They believe it's bad, but clearly, from their response, it's not anywhere near as bad as that. If your government/heathcare/someOtherOrg was grinding up babies post birth at scale, or any equivalent, I'd expect the response to be more riots and bombs, and less "Let's campaign for fifty odd years to get the capability to ban it in a number of states". Edit: Response to "of course they do": I strongly disbelieve that, simply because of their response There were ~600k abortions in 2021. If the right truly believed in their hearts that an abortion is directly equal to a murder, they'd basically be giving a pathetic response to what would be an absolutely "Final Solution" level crime. Estimates of the Jewish death toll were ~6 million and was responded to by full fledged, hot war. If their response to a holocaust every 10 years was "we'll slowly eke forward over 50Y, and manage to get bans in just half the country", that's a hell of a pathetic response.
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  Google "March for Life." Its massive (rivaling the "Women's March" a few years back), has happened every year for nearly 50 years at DC, and always has a media blackout talking about it. And everyone there believes without a doubt it is murder. Also the Gen Z presence is massive at these marches, much more so than the "Women's March" which is interesting.
- Grustaf 4y ago
  > Except that (virtually) nobody on the right truly believes that it's full fledged baby murder Why would you think that? Clearly almost everyone that is against abortion believes that, that's the whole point. Even most people who are in favour of abortion would consider it at least close to murder if say an abusive husband beats his pregnant wife, killing the baby. The only difference there is that the mother wanted the child to live, how can that have bearing on whether it's murder or not?
  - orwin 4y ago
    https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-05-17-mn-58803-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-05-17-mn-58803-... It's not as clear as you seem to think. I would agree with the second court here. Prior to 25weeks this shouldn't be a murder. But if the action have an effect on the woman ability to bear children in the future, this should be considered as aggravating circumstances. And there is no case of abusing husbands causing miscarriage in the US. Even though i found study citing that 27% of miscarriage are caused by wife beaters in india, i couldn't find the statistics or any case in the US.
    - Grustaf 4y ago
      I'm saying "most people consider", I am not talking about legal rulings.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  >> Why? To someone who thinks abortion is the murder of babies, what you advocate is priority inversion error. > Except that (virtually) nobody on the right truly believes that it's full fledged baby murder. They believe it's bad, but clearly, from their response, it's not anywhere near as bad as that. So? That doesn't affect my point at all. They don't have to think abortion is "full fledged baby murder" for what was advocated up-thread to be a priority inversion error. They just have to think of it as being more wrong than whatever persuasion tactics the "counseling clinics" use. Given that all but the most extreme persuasion tactics themselves typically rate from "not wrong" to "mildly wrong/annoying," that's not a hard bar to pass.