5 ms·

Politically this is the more palatable choice, as well. Conservatives love the idea of limiting access to contraception and abortion, and abhor the idea of givi

Politically this is the more palatable choice, as well. Conservatives love the idea of limiting access to contraception and abortion, and abhor the idea of giving people who aren’t corporations any kind of financial benefits.

freedomben 3y ago
Could you name some of these conservatives that love the idea of limiting access to contraception?
- notpachet 3y ago
  As an initial datapoint for you, here are the 195 members of the House that voted against H.R. 8373 (aka the Right to Contraception Act) in 2022. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/117-2022/h385 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/117-2022/h385 I'm sure you can find more data yourself, Google search isn't that far gone yet.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    This does seem like the best example so far, but I think on it's own it falls short of the original goalpost of Conservatives "love the idea of limiting access to contraception." Steelmanning, it would be interesting to hear from the opposition why they don't support the bill. For example, I could see an opponent argue that this is not something that should be done at the Federal level, and such an argument would not make that person "love[s] the idea of limiting access to contraception" as GP has asserted. I could also see some unease about defining it as a "right" because that can have significant legal implications.
    - notpachet 3y ago
      Well, I don't think you're necessarily going to find anyone who says they "love" the idea of limiting contraception access, so I may have been guilty of inadvertently signaling that I agree with the choice of phrase there.
- okamiueru 3y ago
  Is... this sealioning? It's one of the easiest things to find endless examples of. I won't assume you are arguing in bad faith here, so, what have you done in an attempt to find the answer to that question?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - freedomben 3y ago
    Thank you, and no this is not sealioning. Every thing I found was related to abortion in some way, which is a little more nuanced than just general access to contraceptives like condoms or birth control pills. GP (who I asked the question to) seems to agree with me that abortion isn't quite the same as "contraceptives": > Conservatives love the idea of limiting access to contraception and abortion It's obvious that Conservatives are mostly against abortion, but what about contraception in general? Are there some non-fringe Conservatives that are coming out in favor of legal restrictions on condoms or birth control pills or similar?
    - okamiueru 3y ago
      Did you see the link someone suggested: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/117-2022/h385 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/117-2022/h385 ? A lot of things in politics can be murky. US republican votes on certain issues, is not one of them. If this stuff is obvious to me, and I don't even live there, I have to wonder how it is you can be so under-informed to genuinely think that Republican legislators are not against the restriction of contraception.
      - freedomben 3y ago
        > If this stuff is obvious to me, and I don't even live there, I have to wonder how it is you can be so under-informed to genuinely think that Republican legislators are not against the restriction of contraception. If this stuff is obvious to you, and you don't even live here, then perhaps you're oversimplifying the issue and making some unsubstantiated conclusions. What are some of the arguments against the bill that you evaluated before you concluded that they "love the idea of limiting access to contraception?" Did you actually look at those arguments before you concluded that there couldn't possibly be any other reason for opposing the bill than that they love limiting access? I would agree that there probably are some of them who do want to limit access, but the original claim of "Conservatives love the idea of limiting access to contraception" needs a lot more substantiation than what we've been given, and clearly has burden of proof on it.
- otterley 3y ago
  Basically, any official in power who refuses to allow teachers to provide sex education classes that include contraception discussions - or parents or other concerned citizens who try to pressure them against it. Knowledge is an effective prerequisite to access.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    Firstly, what age group are we talking about here? Is this Kindergarten kids or is this College Sophomores? Following this line of thought though, does this mean that if someone is against teachers providing gun education classes, then they are in favor of restricting or eliminating gun rights? There would definitely be some overlap, probably even mostly, but I could see someone arguing that gun rights are important but school isn't the most appopriate place for that to be taught.
    - otterley 3y ago
      > Firstly, what age group are we talking about here? Is this Kindergarten kids or is this College Sophomores? I'm not going to have a conversation with someone who won't argue in good faith. There's obviously a middle ground here that starts at puberty that you purposely chose to ignore.
      - freedomben 3y ago
        The age group is relevant, because the Florida law that many people point to was about younger children. But regardless, my second point doesn't depend at all on the age group. So sure, ad hominem is an easy way to avoid having to reconcile uncomfortable logic.
        otterley 3y ago
        First, I wasn't talking about a Florida law. Attempts to restrict sex education happen all over the country, and have been happening since at least the 1980s. I remember having to take a permission slip home to my parents during the Reagan years to be present when the subject was taught. Your second point was a ridiculous attempt to bring guns into the conversation. "Gun rights" are a uniquely American concept and have nothing to do with understanding one's own body, sexuality and reproduction. These concepts are not just universal human concerns; they are core to the functioning of the animal kingdom.
- NickC25 3y ago
  Samuel Alito, Amy Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett "I won't overturn Roe v. Wade" Kavanaugh, Clarence "my wife is an insurrectionist but I don't care" Thomas.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    Roe v. Wade is about abortion, not contraception in general. It's a fallacy of composition to suggest that someone against abortion is "against contraception." While some people do use abortion as contraception, that doesn't mean contraception == abortion.
- dashundchen 3y ago
  I have a feeling you already know there's a conservative movement to roll back access to contraception (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby?), but if you needed any further proof, mainstream far-right conservative Clarence Thomas explicitly wrote in the Dobbs opinion: "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote in concurrence. “Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous,' we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents"' and many sibling posts have cover the current legislative initiatives to restrict birth control. So yes, the far-right does want to roll back access to birth control, the right to marriage equality, the right to privacy between consenting adults. The American far-right wants a big brother government enforcing their personal morality on the whole country, right into our bedrooms and bathrooms.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    The case you cited is not about whether the employees or people in general should have access to contraception. It's about whether an employer has to pay for it as part of their health benefits. That's quite a bit more nuanced than you've made it out to be. I think an employer like Hobby Lobby doing that is gross, but it's not as simple as you've made it sound.
    - jquery 3y ago
      Hobby Lobby was about whether the government is allowed to make contraception widely available and easy to access. Nothing nuanced there unless you oppose contraception in general.
      - freedomben 3y ago
        Can you please clarify what Hobby Lobby has to with the whether the government is allowed to make contraception widely available and easy to access? Are you saying for example that the gov wanted to directly provide contraceptives, and Hobby Lobby somehow sued to prevent this? Or are you reframing something like, "Hobby Lobby was about whether the government is allowed to make contraception widely available and easy to access" by forcing private employers to cover/pay/subsidize them?
- revscat 3y ago
  Can you name a Republican who has positively stated their support for women’s access to contraception? People have pointed out numerous examples of conservative groups acting against contraception, and you have dismissed them all. You seem to be implying that conservatives support contraception. This is not what evidence shows. Should you have some showing otherwise, though, please provide it.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    > People have pointed out numerous examples of conservative groups acting against contraception, and you have dismissed them all. Nobody has pointed out any examples that are for contraceptives like condoms or birth control pills, but don't include abortions. All the examples have lumped in abortions as "contraceptives," which is a fallacy of composition (contraceptives is a much broader category than abortion is). Yes, conservatives are generally speaking very much against abortion because they believe it is murder. They do love to restrict murder. They do not (at least not that I've seen any evidence for) love to restrict condoms or birth control pills. > You seem to be implying that conservatives support contraception. > This is not what evidence shows. Should you have some showing otherwise, though, please provide it. No, I'm not claiming that at all. I don't think (at a public/policy level) most conservatives give a rats ass for or against condoms or birth control pills.

freedomben 3y ago

Could you name some of these conservatives that love the idea of limiting access to contraception?

notpachet 3y ago
As an initial datapoint for you, here are the 195 members of the House that voted against H.R. 8373 (aka the Right to Contraception Act) in 2022. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/117-2022/h385 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/117-2022/h385 I'm sure you can find more data yourself, Google search isn't that far gone yet.
- freedomben 3y ago
  This does seem like the best example so far, but I think on it's own it falls short of the original goalpost of Conservatives "love the idea of limiting access to contraception." Steelmanning, it would be interesting to hear from the opposition why they don't support the bill. For example, I could see an opponent argue that this is not something that should be done at the Federal level, and such an argument would not make that person "love[s] the idea of limiting access to contraception" as GP has asserted. I could also see some unease about defining it as a "right" because that can have significant legal implications.
  - notpachet 3y ago
    Well, I don't think you're necessarily going to find anyone who says they "love" the idea of limiting contraception access, so I may have been guilty of inadvertently signaling that I agree with the choice of phrase there.
okamiueru 3y ago
Is... this sealioning? It's one of the easiest things to find endless examples of. I won't assume you are arguing in bad faith here, so, what have you done in an attempt to find the answer to that question?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- freedomben 3y ago
  Thank you, and no this is not sealioning. Every thing I found was related to abortion in some way, which is a little more nuanced than just general access to contraceptives like condoms or birth control pills. GP (who I asked the question to) seems to agree with me that abortion isn't quite the same as "contraceptives": > Conservatives love the idea of limiting access to contraception and abortion It's obvious that Conservatives are mostly against abortion, but what about contraception in general? Are there some non-fringe Conservatives that are coming out in favor of legal restrictions on condoms or birth control pills or similar?
  - okamiueru 3y ago
    Did you see the link someone suggested: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/117-2022/h385 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/117-2022/h385 ? A lot of things in politics can be murky. US republican votes on certain issues, is not one of them. If this stuff is obvious to me, and I don't even live there, I have to wonder how it is you can be so under-informed to genuinely think that Republican legislators are not against the restriction of contraception.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      > If this stuff is obvious to me, and I don't even live there, I have to wonder how it is you can be so under-informed to genuinely think that Republican legislators are not against the restriction of contraception. If this stuff is obvious to you, and you don't even live here, then perhaps you're oversimplifying the issue and making some unsubstantiated conclusions. What are some of the arguments against the bill that you evaluated before you concluded that they "love the idea of limiting access to contraception?" Did you actually look at those arguments before you concluded that there couldn't possibly be any other reason for opposing the bill than that they love limiting access? I would agree that there probably are some of them who do want to limit access, but the original claim of "Conservatives love the idea of limiting access to contraception" needs a lot more substantiation than what we've been given, and clearly has burden of proof on it.
otterley 3y ago
Basically, any official in power who refuses to allow teachers to provide sex education classes that include contraception discussions - or parents or other concerned citizens who try to pressure them against it. Knowledge is an effective prerequisite to access.
- freedomben 3y ago
  Firstly, what age group are we talking about here? Is this Kindergarten kids or is this College Sophomores? Following this line of thought though, does this mean that if someone is against teachers providing gun education classes, then they are in favor of restricting or eliminating gun rights? There would definitely be some overlap, probably even mostly, but I could see someone arguing that gun rights are important but school isn't the most appopriate place for that to be taught.
  - otterley 3y ago
    > Firstly, what age group are we talking about here? Is this Kindergarten kids or is this College Sophomores? I'm not going to have a conversation with someone who won't argue in good faith. There's obviously a middle ground here that starts at puberty that you purposely chose to ignore.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      The age group is relevant, because the Florida law that many people point to was about younger children. But regardless, my second point doesn't depend at all on the age group. So sure, ad hominem is an easy way to avoid having to reconcile uncomfortable logic.
      - otterley 3y ago
        First, I wasn't talking about a Florida law. Attempts to restrict sex education happen all over the country, and have been happening since at least the 1980s. I remember having to take a permission slip home to my parents during the Reagan years to be present when the subject was taught. Your second point was a ridiculous attempt to bring guns into the conversation. "Gun rights" are a uniquely American concept and have nothing to do with understanding one's own body, sexuality and reproduction. These concepts are not just universal human concerns; they are core to the functioning of the animal kingdom.
NickC25 3y ago
Samuel Alito, Amy Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett "I won't overturn Roe v. Wade" Kavanaugh, Clarence "my wife is an insurrectionist but I don't care" Thomas.
- freedomben 3y ago
  Roe v. Wade is about abortion, not contraception in general. It's a fallacy of composition to suggest that someone against abortion is "against contraception." While some people do use abortion as contraception, that doesn't mean contraception == abortion.
dashundchen 3y ago
I have a feeling you already know there's a conservative movement to roll back access to contraception (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby?), but if you needed any further proof, mainstream far-right conservative Clarence Thomas explicitly wrote in the Dobbs opinion: "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote in concurrence. “Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous,' we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents"' and many sibling posts have cover the current legislative initiatives to restrict birth control. So yes, the far-right does want to roll back access to birth control, the right to marriage equality, the right to privacy between consenting adults. The American far-right wants a big brother government enforcing their personal morality on the whole country, right into our bedrooms and bathrooms.
- freedomben 3y ago
  The case you cited is not about whether the employees or people in general should have access to contraception. It's about whether an employer has to pay for it as part of their health benefits. That's quite a bit more nuanced than you've made it out to be. I think an employer like Hobby Lobby doing that is gross, but it's not as simple as you've made it sound.
  - jquery 3y ago
    Hobby Lobby was about whether the government is allowed to make contraception widely available and easy to access. Nothing nuanced there unless you oppose contraception in general.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      Can you please clarify what Hobby Lobby has to with the whether the government is allowed to make contraception widely available and easy to access? Are you saying for example that the gov wanted to directly provide contraceptives, and Hobby Lobby somehow sued to prevent this? Or are you reframing something like, "Hobby Lobby was about whether the government is allowed to make contraception widely available and easy to access" by forcing private employers to cover/pay/subsidize them?
revscat 3y ago
Can you name a Republican who has positively stated their support for women’s access to contraception? People have pointed out numerous examples of conservative groups acting against contraception, and you have dismissed them all. You seem to be implying that conservatives support contraception. This is not what evidence shows. Should you have some showing otherwise, though, please provide it.
- freedomben 3y ago
  > People have pointed out numerous examples of conservative groups acting against contraception, and you have dismissed them all. Nobody has pointed out any examples that are for contraceptives like condoms or birth control pills, but don't include abortions. All the examples have lumped in abortions as "contraceptives," which is a fallacy of composition (contraceptives is a much broader category than abortion is). Yes, conservatives are generally speaking very much against abortion because they believe it is murder. They do love to restrict murder. They do not (at least not that I've seen any evidence for) love to restrict condoms or birth control pills. > You seem to be implying that conservatives support contraception. > This is not what evidence shows. Should you have some showing otherwise, though, please provide it. No, I'm not claiming that at all. I don't think (at a public/policy level) most conservatives give a rats ass for or against condoms or birth control pills.