6 ms·

Is this not a slippery slope fallacy?

jshier 3y ago
Not when people have publicly stated they're actively working to ban birth control, no.
giraffe_lady 3y ago
It is not. Significant minorities of the anti-abortion movement are also anti-contraceptive. There are articles and even draft legislation published by these groups from 15+ years ago detailing the ultimate goal being bans on contraceptives. You could believe they can't achieve those goals, I guess, but believing they want to is not a fallacy in this context come on.
- giantg2 3y ago
  I can see that. It's very similar to significant minorities in the gun control movement. On either issue, premature movement to counteract them could bring more harm than good. Edit: why disagree?
- skissane 3y ago
  > It is not. Significant minorities of the anti-abortion movement are also anti-contraceptive. Many of them want to ban contraceptive methods they view as “abortifacient”. We can argue about whether they are right to give certain methods that label-but there are contraceptive methods nobody calls that, such as condoms. People are ignoring the distinction between “want to ban some methods of contraception” and “want to ban all methods of contraception”-almost nobody belongs to the second category. Few other than conservative Catholics are completely morally opposed to condoms, and very few of those want the state to enforce that particular moral judgement. From the logic of their own beliefs, condoms are a sexual sin but not the taking of innocent life, so there is not the same need for the state to ban it.
  - phone8675309 3y ago
    What the fuck business is it of the government or other people not directly involved in the sex act what birth control I am using so long as it is not harmful to the people using it or the public at large?
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    Who cares though? It makes no difference to the people whose lives are affected by the banning of contraceptives. This sort of sophisticated model of their interiority is simply not valuable to me. I don't care if they're internally consistent I care what they want to do.
    - skissane 3y ago
      I think it is important to steelman one’s opponents rather than strawman them, to seek to present their position accurately rather than oversimplifying it. To me that is an important norm of civil discourse, and I care about the norms of civil discourse. That increasingly many people don’t doesn’t bode well for society’s future.
      - giraffe_lady 3y ago
        One really distinct american political dynamic of the last decade or two is liberals caring about the norms of civil discourse while the far right succeeds in its wildest dreams by ignoring them. There's no referee to call when they do that, there's no virtue in losing civil rights but keeping the moral high ground.
        skissane 3y ago
        Is that what has actually happened? One can point to plenty of liberals/progressives defying those norms, and plenty of conservatives respecting them. Both “sides” contain civil and uncivil people; claims that one side is worse than the other rely heavily on ignoring the faults of one’s preferred side while highlighting those of the other I also don’t agree that the “far right succeeds in its wildest dreams”-I think that kind of talk relies on nonsensically grouping together Clarence Thomas with David Duke, Trump-supporting Orthodox Jews [0] with neo-Nazi antisemites such as Andrew Anglin [0] https://www.timesofisrael.com/orthodox-jews-back-trump-by-massive-margin-poll-finds/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/orthodox-jews-back-trump-by-ma...
phone8675309 3y ago
No - historically the Comstock laws in the US banned distribution of contraceptives and contraception information and abortifacients and information on abortion. This is something that the US has done in the past and has support among many of the current day anti-abortion crowd. It's not a slippery slope fallacy if you've already climbed the hill and someone greases it behind you. People said similar things about Roe v. Wade before the Supreme Court recently overturned it.

Not when people have publicly stated they're actively working to ban birth control, no.

It is not. Significant minorities of the anti-abortion movement are also anti-contraceptive. There are articles and even draft legislation published by these groups from 15+ years ago detailing the ultimate goal being bans on contraceptives. You could believe they can't achieve those goals, I guess, but believing they want to is not a fallacy in this context come on.

giantg2 3y ago
I can see that. It's very similar to significant minorities in the gun control movement. On either issue, premature movement to counteract them could bring more harm than good. Edit: why disagree?
skissane 3y ago
> It is not. Significant minorities of the anti-abortion movement are also anti-contraceptive. Many of them want to ban contraceptive methods they view as “abortifacient”. We can argue about whether they are right to give certain methods that label-but there are contraceptive methods nobody calls that, such as condoms. People are ignoring the distinction between “want to ban some methods of contraception” and “want to ban all methods of contraception”-almost nobody belongs to the second category. Few other than conservative Catholics are completely morally opposed to condoms, and very few of those want the state to enforce that particular moral judgement. From the logic of their own beliefs, condoms are a sexual sin but not the taking of innocent life, so there is not the same need for the state to ban it.
- phone8675309 3y ago
  What the fuck business is it of the government or other people not directly involved in the sex act what birth control I am using so long as it is not harmful to the people using it or the public at large?
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  Who cares though? It makes no difference to the people whose lives are affected by the banning of contraceptives. This sort of sophisticated model of their interiority is simply not valuable to me. I don't care if they're internally consistent I care what they want to do.
  - skissane 3y ago
    I think it is important to steelman one’s opponents rather than strawman them, to seek to present their position accurately rather than oversimplifying it. To me that is an important norm of civil discourse, and I care about the norms of civil discourse. That increasingly many people don’t doesn’t bode well for society’s future.
    - giraffe_lady 3y ago
      One really distinct american political dynamic of the last decade or two is liberals caring about the norms of civil discourse while the far right succeeds in its wildest dreams by ignoring them. There's no referee to call when they do that, there's no virtue in losing civil rights but keeping the moral high ground.
      - skissane 3y ago
        Is that what has actually happened? One can point to plenty of liberals/progressives defying those norms, and plenty of conservatives respecting them. Both “sides” contain civil and uncivil people; claims that one side is worse than the other rely heavily on ignoring the faults of one’s preferred side while highlighting those of the other I also don’t agree that the “far right succeeds in its wildest dreams”-I think that kind of talk relies on nonsensically grouping together Clarence Thomas with David Duke, Trump-supporting Orthodox Jews [0] with neo-Nazi antisemites such as Andrew Anglin [0] https://www.timesofisrael.com/orthodox-jews-back-trump-by-massive-margin-poll-finds/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/orthodox-jews-back-trump-by-ma...

phone8675309 3y ago

No - historically the Comstock laws in the US banned distribution of contraceptives and contraception information and abortifacients and information on abortion. This is something that the US has done in the past and has support among many of the current day anti-abortion crowd. It's not a slippery slope fallacy if you've already climbed the hill and someone greases it behind you. People said similar things about Roe v. Wade before the Supreme Court recently overturned it.