2 ms·

Students for Life is a republican non-profit organization, same for the Catholic Medical Association. They are pushing concentrated efforts to restrict access t

Students for Life is a republican non-profit organization, same for the Catholic Medical Association. They are pushing concentrated efforts to restrict access to pre-pregnancy contraceptives. You're trying to pull a no true scotsman here and it isn't working. > That issue is about whether parents should have access to private information about their children, not restrictions to contraceptives. No, that is exactly the issue. The issue is you have religious parents that are anti-contraceptives. The goal of this is to prevent people from using contraceptives under the watch of their parents. The ruling is specifically around contraceptives, so you trying to say it's not about contraceptives is incredibly weird.

CivBase 3y ago
That's not a "no true scotsman" argument. It would be if I claimed something like "they're not real Republicans" but I'm not. Those are indeed Republican organizations and I did not claim otherwise. So what? Republicans aren't a hive mind. They don't agree on everything. You wouldn't claim the Democratic party wants to ban vaccines just because JFK Jr. is an anti-vaxer. Supporters of a party aren't always indicative of that party's stance on all issues. > The ruling is specifically around contraceptives, so you trying to say it's not about contraceptives is incredibly weird. How is it weird? Parental rights over their children is a frequent focus of Republican politics. They've recently pushed for similar policies in regards to sexuality and gender identity. I'm not going to pretend there aren't Republican voters whose support for the policy is motivated by the thought process you just layed out. But it's not reasonable to prescribe that motivation to the entire Republican party when there are other explanations that are more consistent with recent and historical Republican ideologies.

CivBase 3y ago

That's not a "no true scotsman" argument. It would be if I claimed something like "they're not real Republicans" but I'm not. Those are indeed Republican organizations and I did not claim otherwise. So what? Republicans aren't a hive mind. They don't agree on everything. You wouldn't claim the Democratic party wants to ban vaccines just because JFK Jr. is an anti-vaxer. Supporters of a party aren't always indicative of that party's stance on all issues. > The ruling is specifically around contraceptives, so you trying to say it's not about contraceptives is incredibly weird. How is it weird? Parental rights over their children is a frequent focus of Republican politics. They've recently pushed for similar policies in regards to sexuality and gender identity. I'm not going to pretend there aren't Republican voters whose support for the policy is motivated by the thought process you just layed out. But it's not reasonable to prescribe that motivation to the entire Republican party when there are other explanations that are more consistent with recent and historical Republican ideologies.