3 ms·

Not sure why this is being downvoted, I agree that the privacy implications you called out are very serious, and I’m glad you’ve changed your mind and come to t

by dahart 3y ago

Not sure why this is being downvoted, I agree that the privacy implications you called out are very serious, and I’m glad you’ve changed your mind and come to the conclusions you did. Thanks for posting about it, and sorry some people are being rude about it. I’m hearing there are a lot of people who were pro-life but didn’t ever expect Row-v-Wade to actually overturn, and now that they are seeing the real-world implications of that, are realizing it’s not a good idea to have dogmatic blanket bans. I heard a podcast about how Idaho’s in crisis because they’ve lost a bunch of their already very small number of obstetricians, because they’re now suspect and legally liable anytime a baby dies, and now women who are having serious pregnancy complications are unable to get care, and are being forced to travel long distances right at the moment they need help.

ralmidani 3y ago
Thank you! Retroactive shaming of anyone who was ever against your political position seems like some folks are devolving toward something even worse than cancel culture. The rudeness, as you put it, is not going to change my mind about the issue itself, but it does make me want to avoid the impossible-to-reason-with zealots.
- dahart 3y ago
  Absolutely, we need to be doing the exact opposite and welcoming and praising people who join us. I’ll say it now: welcome! I’m glad you’re here. We will not make headway with this issue by yelling louder at each other or being more obstinate. What you did is actually hard to do, challenging your own beliefs and changing your mind. That’s commendable. To be honest, I think if we could strip all existing talking points on both sides, and get people to truly derive their own personal conclusions from scratch, I would expect the vast majority of people to be both in favor of women having absolute autonomy over their health care and body choices, and also in favor of trying to avoid abortion as a contraceptive if we can, avoiding late abortions, and hopefully using it only or mostly as a tool to treat bad situations. In other words, I would expect a lot of people to have the exact stance you’re arriving at - that we need to allow people to do what they need to, and we still hope that abortion isn’t happening excessively or willy-nilly or late without medical necessity. The core idea behind the two camps, the ‘pro-‘ position of each side, is not necessarily in opposition at all, so it’s funny it’s gotten so extreme and presented as completely opposites.
  - ralmidani 3y ago
    I love it! And I’ll do you one better: US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, for all his faults (which are numerous), supported the 5-4 majority in a landmark case regarding flag burning. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson Imagine if Justice William Brennan, who wrote the majority opinion, said to Scalia rudely and dismissively “you don’t really believe in civil liberties, you’re only an absolutist on free speech”. It could have led to it being illegal today to burn the flag (which I don’t approve of on a personal level) - and presumably many other ways of expressing disapproval with how the US government conducts itself.

by dahart 3y ago

ralmidani 3y ago

Thank you! Retroactive shaming of anyone who was ever against your political position seems like some folks are devolving toward something even worse than cancel culture. The rudeness, as you put it, is not going to change my mind about the issue itself, but it does make me want to avoid the impossible-to-reason-with zealots.

dahart 3y ago
Absolutely, we need to be doing the exact opposite and welcoming and praising people who join us. I’ll say it now: welcome! I’m glad you’re here. We will not make headway with this issue by yelling louder at each other or being more obstinate. What you did is actually hard to do, challenging your own beliefs and changing your mind. That’s commendable. To be honest, I think if we could strip all existing talking points on both sides, and get people to truly derive their own personal conclusions from scratch, I would expect the vast majority of people to be both in favor of women having absolute autonomy over their health care and body choices, and also in favor of trying to avoid abortion as a contraceptive if we can, avoiding late abortions, and hopefully using it only or mostly as a tool to treat bad situations. In other words, I would expect a lot of people to have the exact stance you’re arriving at - that we need to allow people to do what they need to, and we still hope that abortion isn’t happening excessively or willy-nilly or late without medical necessity. The core idea behind the two camps, the ‘pro-‘ position of each side, is not necessarily in opposition at all, so it’s funny it’s gotten so extreme and presented as completely opposites.
- ralmidani 3y ago
  I love it! And I’ll do you one better: US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, for all his faults (which are numerous), supported the 5-4 majority in a landmark case regarding flag burning. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson Imagine if Justice William Brennan, who wrote the majority opinion, said to Scalia rudely and dismissively “you don’t really believe in civil liberties, you’re only an absolutist on free speech”. It could have led to it being illegal today to burn the flag (which I don’t approve of on a personal level) - and presumably many other ways of expressing disapproval with how the US government conducts itself.