6 ms·

I always worry when we start painting large groups of people with a single brush and labeling them the enemy. There are plenty of people who oppose abortion th

I always worry when we start painting large groups of people with a single brush and labeling them the enemy. There are plenty of people who oppose abortion that are appalled at something like this or the Texas bounty hunting law. If we continue to try and paint each other group as a monolithic enemy other division will continue to rise and polarization will increase and the effects will be devestating.

SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
I agree with this broadly but I actually disagree with this point for this specific poster. “These people” is a phrase referring distinctly to the national right to life organization, whose goal is in fact to make abortion illegal nationwide. In this case, that organization is about as monolithic an enemy of pro choice people as possible. (Edited to add: there is a separate frustration of the poster of people claiming that diverting reproductive justice to state determination is reasonable. The poster is saying they are frustrated with that statement because it ignore the above fact. I also don’t think this is painting anyone with a broad brush… it is painting specific people’s specific argument as being myopic.)
andsoitis 4y ago
But opposing abortion and not caring about the consequences for women and families IS appalling.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  Edit: I misread the parent quote.
  - PaulsWallet 4y ago
    > You're conflating a lot of things here, none of which are really related. Speaking of things that aren't related. I don't see how those things being legal is even somewhat related to making abortion illegal or making it legal to bounty hunt women. You're going to have to explain that connection to me a bit more.
  - andsoitis 4y ago
    > largely pulled back because it's constitutional basis was too weak to defend in the Supreme Court "large pulled back" belies the fact that the motives are ulterior. > consequences are largely left up to the people who choose to use those things In the case of banning abortion, you're denying choice and autonomy. You're saying a woman HAS to give birth even if it wasn't her choice. Even if she was raped. Even if she's 10 years old. If you don't find that stance appalling, I don't know what to say.
  - nine_k 4y ago
    Damaging oneself e.g. by reckless consumption of substances is one thing. Forcing a birth of a badly unwanted human being, who is going to suffer through life being badly unwanted, is a rather different thing. And forcing a woman to keep carrying a pregnancy which is dangerous to her life (and thus to the prospective baby's life anyway) is not just indifference, it's a direct opposite of care.
badcppdev 4y ago
The effects are already devastating. From the point of view of a women unable to access medical services due to these laws it is literally a matter of life and death right now. So you can worry or you can act.
AlexandrB 4y ago
I'm speaking about groups like the NRLC and the Federalist Society who have been working towards this goal for decades. I'm sure some conservatives are opposed to the extremity of what's being proposed, but if they continue to vote Republican I'm not sure what good that does anyone.
EddieDante 4y ago
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
  > If you oppose abortion, you're the enemy. I don't know about that; I think it is possible to oppose abortion, but not seek to do so via legal remedies. Like opposing drinking or smoking, or game microtransactions, or IoT devices.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    In the context of this discussion, I think they meant “oppose access to abortion for those who want/need it”.
    - buscoquadnary 4y ago
      I think that want/need is doing a lot of work here. One can be in favor of abortions for medical necessity or when the choice to get pregnant was not consensual while still being wildly opposed to abortions for convenience reasons.
      - powerhour 4y ago
        How big must the government be to investigate every miscarriage to see whether or not it was deliberate and for medical necessity, or done because the pregnancy was the result of rape? We're talking about hiring a lot of medical professionals and expanding our already large tracking apparatuses. If we're not talking about expanding government along these lines then maybe we should just leave the choice to the people immediately involved.
      - EddieDante 4y ago
        I've known women who have had miscarriages, and I've known women who for various reasons have had to terminate their pregnancies. Abortion is only "convenient" compared to being stuck raising a kid you aren't ready and willing to raise, giving birth to a kid that's going to have special needs because of genetic defects, or trying to carry a pregnancy to term that's likely to kill you.
powerhour 4y ago
To me, the bounty hunter law is reprehensible, but not as much as the motivation behind it. Those with that motivation can be treated as a single group. And to be frank, I don't care if they're unhappy to be lumped together. Lie with dogs and all that.
- buscoquadnary 4y ago
  Should every movement be painted with the same brush as the worst people in the movement?
  - tyleo 4y ago
    Frankly I don’t think that the problem is that individuals who are part of the pro life movement are lumped in with the worst in the group. Rather, many who hold even less extreme pro life positions are still across the line of what others deem acceptable.
  - powerhour 4y ago
    I'm painting the group with the same brush as their best, those that "merely" want to shame people for seeking abortions.
  - taeric 4y ago
    Conversely, should every movement be painted with the brush of their best people? This is a bit... difficult to take seriously. They are being painted by the general actions at large that they are causing. If you want them to be seen in their best light, try to get their best light into the spotlight.
  - xnx 4y ago
    If they don't strongly disavow the worst people in the movement, yes.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
> If we continue to try and paint each other group as a monolithic enemy other division will continue to rise and polarization will increase and the effects will be devestating. Then perhaps the other group should not have monolithically spent decades fighting against and removing human rights from people I care about.

SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago

I agree with this broadly but I actually disagree with this point for this specific poster. “These people” is a phrase referring distinctly to the national right to life organization, whose goal is in fact to make abortion illegal nationwide. In this case, that organization is about as monolithic an enemy of pro choice people as possible. (Edited to add: there is a separate frustration of the poster of people claiming that diverting reproductive justice to state determination is reasonable. The poster is saying they are frustrated with that statement because it ignore the above fact. I also don’t think this is painting anyone with a broad brush… it is painting specific people’s specific argument as being myopic.)

andsoitis 4y ago

But opposing abortion and not caring about the consequences for women and families IS appalling.

smoldesu 4y ago
Edit: I misread the parent quote.
- PaulsWallet 4y ago
  > You're conflating a lot of things here, none of which are really related. Speaking of things that aren't related. I don't see how those things being legal is even somewhat related to making abortion illegal or making it legal to bounty hunt women. You're going to have to explain that connection to me a bit more.
- andsoitis 4y ago
  > largely pulled back because it's constitutional basis was too weak to defend in the Supreme Court "large pulled back" belies the fact that the motives are ulterior. > consequences are largely left up to the people who choose to use those things In the case of banning abortion, you're denying choice and autonomy. You're saying a woman HAS to give birth even if it wasn't her choice. Even if she was raped. Even if she's 10 years old. If you don't find that stance appalling, I don't know what to say.
- nine_k 4y ago
  Damaging oneself e.g. by reckless consumption of substances is one thing. Forcing a birth of a badly unwanted human being, who is going to suffer through life being badly unwanted, is a rather different thing. And forcing a woman to keep carrying a pregnancy which is dangerous to her life (and thus to the prospective baby's life anyway) is not just indifference, it's a direct opposite of care.

badcppdev 4y ago

The effects are already devastating. From the point of view of a women unable to access medical services due to these laws it is literally a matter of life and death right now. So you can worry or you can act.

AlexandrB 4y ago

I'm speaking about groups like the NRLC and the Federalist Society who have been working towards this goal for decades. I'm sure some conservatives are opposed to the extremity of what's being proposed, but if they continue to vote Republican I'm not sure what good that does anyone.

EddieDante 4y ago

AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
> If you oppose abortion, you're the enemy. I don't know about that; I think it is possible to oppose abortion, but not seek to do so via legal remedies. Like opposing drinking or smoking, or game microtransactions, or IoT devices.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  In the context of this discussion, I think they meant “oppose access to abortion for those who want/need it”.
  - buscoquadnary 4y ago
    I think that want/need is doing a lot of work here. One can be in favor of abortions for medical necessity or when the choice to get pregnant was not consensual while still being wildly opposed to abortions for convenience reasons.
    - powerhour 4y ago
      How big must the government be to investigate every miscarriage to see whether or not it was deliberate and for medical necessity, or done because the pregnancy was the result of rape? We're talking about hiring a lot of medical professionals and expanding our already large tracking apparatuses. If we're not talking about expanding government along these lines then maybe we should just leave the choice to the people immediately involved.
    - EddieDante 4y ago
      I've known women who have had miscarriages, and I've known women who for various reasons have had to terminate their pregnancies. Abortion is only "convenient" compared to being stuck raising a kid you aren't ready and willing to raise, giving birth to a kid that's going to have special needs because of genetic defects, or trying to carry a pregnancy to term that's likely to kill you.

powerhour 4y ago

To me, the bounty hunter law is reprehensible, but not as much as the motivation behind it. Those with that motivation can be treated as a single group. And to be frank, I don't care if they're unhappy to be lumped together. Lie with dogs and all that.

buscoquadnary 4y ago
Should every movement be painted with the same brush as the worst people in the movement?
- tyleo 4y ago
  Frankly I don’t think that the problem is that individuals who are part of the pro life movement are lumped in with the worst in the group. Rather, many who hold even less extreme pro life positions are still across the line of what others deem acceptable.
- powerhour 4y ago
  I'm painting the group with the same brush as their best, those that "merely" want to shame people for seeking abortions.
- taeric 4y ago
  Conversely, should every movement be painted with the brush of their best people? This is a bit... difficult to take seriously. They are being painted by the general actions at large that they are causing. If you want them to be seen in their best light, try to get their best light into the spotlight.
- xnx 4y ago
  If they don't strongly disavow the worst people in the movement, yes.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

> If we continue to try and paint each other group as a monolithic enemy other division will continue to rise and polarization will increase and the effects will be devestating. Then perhaps the other group should not have monolithically spent decades fighting against and removing human rights from people I care about.