3 ms·

Unfortunately, that argument tends to break down almost immediately after birth, so “protecting the children” becomes a cheap catch-all excuse for selective eng

Unfortunately, that argument tends to break down almost immediately after birth, so “protecting the children” becomes a cheap catch-all excuse for selective engagement. Defunding education, defunding school food, defunding numerous programs that actually protect children in favor of cash in their pocket. Morality sold cheaply or abandoned for convenience, except when forcing their will on others, especially if it only affects someone else.

poincaredisk 1y ago
Did you narrow down that topic to American conservatives? I'm not familiar with your politics but that doesn't sound familiar in context of my country. Also, this is whataboutism. If someone cares about A but not enough about B, it doesn't mean that A is not a good thing.
- therealpygon 1y ago
  It does if A always comes at the expense of another person C. Morality only via the sacrifice of others isn’t belief, it is control and punishment.
  - roenxi 1y ago
    > It does if A always comes at the expense of another person C. Morality only via the sacrifice of others isn’t belief, it is control and punishment. Hypothetically [0], if someone saved another person from being murdered by a close relative would that count as proving to you their morality system is based on freedom and forgiveness? [0] Imagine my poker face.
    - therealpygon 1y ago
      And if they are “saving” a terminally ill patient who wanted to go peacefully rather than continuing to endure pain and suffering? So if you are suggesting that walking in, saving someone, then walking away feeling good about yourself while not caring about the pain and suffering you may have inflicted on that person by your actions is justification of morality, I’d say that is just as equally a disgusting of a display of selfishness at the expense of others. Since we are making up hypotheticals, we might as well use this one that is more similar to what happens in reality.
- Propelloni 1y ago
  Of course this predicates that there are differences between A and B. The GP is, I believe, making the point that claiming to protect unwanted unborn children (A) when campaigning for anti-abortion regulation is just a power-play to dictate a lifestyle choice, if it does not follow up with protecting the unwanted born children (B). I think, there is merit to this. Observations shows that most societies forbid woman to throw their unwanted born child into a garbage bin, so if you claim that women are or should be as free as men in their lifestyle choices, where does that leave the woman? Either you need birth control to prevent that situation, or a social security network that takes care of the unwanted child after the fact. In my simple, male mind this should be a given. Otherwise, if I were a woman, I would refuse sex. The ancient Greeks have a funny story about that [0]. Of course, you can also say that women aren't allowed to be as free as men in their lifestyle choices. And I think, I'm not going too far out on a limb when I say that's actually at the bottom of this issue. Some people think it is OK to make women less free than men in the service of their ideals, while others think it is not. Resolve this tension and you will make progress. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata
  - hellojesus 1y ago
    Can you help me understand how criminalizing abortion makes women less free than men? It sounds like your premise is that women have less freedom in personal choice than men when abortion is not available. Presumably this is because men can walk away from a child while women are physically bound to them. Do I have that correct? If so, women are really only physically bound to the child through the pregnancy. Once the child is born, the woman can give it up for adoption and be done with it forever. I would also contest that men aren't totally free of sexual consequence. If they do happen to impregnate a woman, they can be forced to pay child support while the child is a minor. The "abortion is murder" argument also doesn't totally meet the GGP's premise necessitating A and B. That is, if society is unwilling to provide a safety net for born, unwanted children, no contradiction exists if society also refuses to allow abortion. This just means society does not allow murder. After all, a society that does not provide a safety net does not explicity allow the murder of poor people. Just as a society that disallows murder does not necessarily have to provide nourishment via the government.

poincaredisk 1y ago

Did you narrow down that topic to American conservatives? I'm not familiar with your politics but that doesn't sound familiar in context of my country. Also, this is whataboutism. If someone cares about A but not enough about B, it doesn't mean that A is not a good thing.

therealpygon 1y ago
It does if A always comes at the expense of another person C. Morality only via the sacrifice of others isn’t belief, it is control and punishment.
- roenxi 1y ago
  > It does if A always comes at the expense of another person C. Morality only via the sacrifice of others isn’t belief, it is control and punishment. Hypothetically [0], if someone saved another person from being murdered by a close relative would that count as proving to you their morality system is based on freedom and forgiveness? [0] Imagine my poker face.
  - therealpygon 1y ago
    And if they are “saving” a terminally ill patient who wanted to go peacefully rather than continuing to endure pain and suffering? So if you are suggesting that walking in, saving someone, then walking away feeling good about yourself while not caring about the pain and suffering you may have inflicted on that person by your actions is justification of morality, I’d say that is just as equally a disgusting of a display of selfishness at the expense of others. Since we are making up hypotheticals, we might as well use this one that is more similar to what happens in reality.
Propelloni 1y ago
Of course this predicates that there are differences between A and B. The GP is, I believe, making the point that claiming to protect unwanted unborn children (A) when campaigning for anti-abortion regulation is just a power-play to dictate a lifestyle choice, if it does not follow up with protecting the unwanted born children (B). I think, there is merit to this. Observations shows that most societies forbid woman to throw their unwanted born child into a garbage bin, so if you claim that women are or should be as free as men in their lifestyle choices, where does that leave the woman? Either you need birth control to prevent that situation, or a social security network that takes care of the unwanted child after the fact. In my simple, male mind this should be a given. Otherwise, if I were a woman, I would refuse sex. The ancient Greeks have a funny story about that [0]. Of course, you can also say that women aren't allowed to be as free as men in their lifestyle choices. And I think, I'm not going too far out on a limb when I say that's actually at the bottom of this issue. Some people think it is OK to make women less free than men in the service of their ideals, while others think it is not. Resolve this tension and you will make progress. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata
- hellojesus 1y ago
  Can you help me understand how criminalizing abortion makes women less free than men? It sounds like your premise is that women have less freedom in personal choice than men when abortion is not available. Presumably this is because men can walk away from a child while women are physically bound to them. Do I have that correct? If so, women are really only physically bound to the child through the pregnancy. Once the child is born, the woman can give it up for adoption and be done with it forever. I would also contest that men aren't totally free of sexual consequence. If they do happen to impregnate a woman, they can be forced to pay child support while the child is a minor. The "abortion is murder" argument also doesn't totally meet the GGP's premise necessitating A and B. That is, if society is unwilling to provide a safety net for born, unwanted children, no contradiction exists if society also refuses to allow abortion. This just means society does not allow murder. After all, a society that does not provide a safety net does not explicity allow the murder of poor people. Just as a society that disallows murder does not necessarily have to provide nourishment via the government.