this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2023
242 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

30612 readers
1291 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

E.g. abortion rights, anti-LGBTQ, contempt for atheism, Christian nationalism, etc.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 80 points 1 year ago (14 children)

They happen to align with my values. I was raised Christian, and I only became agnostic in college, so that probably plays into it.

For example, abortion, I think murder is abohherent, baby murder especially so. I don't know when the right to life begins, so I err on the side of caution, at the earliest point, at conception.

Im not anti-lgbtq.

I dont hold contempt for atheism, I dont like /r/atheism

Christian nationalism is weird one because no one seems to know what that actually means. And hell, freedom of religion is one of the most important rights, right next to free speech.

I hope that helps.

[–] [email protected] 55 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Banning abortion doesn't stop abortion, it just shifts it to a black market where women are far more likely to die.

What does demonstrably reduce abortion to effectively insignificant levels is better sex education and easy access to contraceptives.

Prohibition has never worked. Education always has.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Let's replace some words. I think that abortion is murder. So it becomes:

"Banning murder doesn’t stop murder"

Do you see the point I'm trying to make?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

You can equate the two, but they're not functionally the same in reality. There is statistical evidence that banning abortion does not work and in fact has the opposite effect, so swapping the words makes no sense. A better comparison would be Prohibition in the US in the 1920s - banning alcohol didn't stop the production or use of it, it just made it exceedingly dangerous, lots of people got sick, went blind, and died from homemade liquor that contained too much methanol.

If you truly care about the life of the child at conception and after its birth, you'd choose the option where there is never an unwanted or accidental pregnancy. Most unwanted pregnancies result in children suffering abuse, entering the foster system, and eventually aging out without ever having a permanent or stable family. Many of these kids live a life where they've NEVER been loved.

There are nearly 400,000 children in the foster system in the US right now and the number grows every day. There's no one to adopt these babies. Forcing women to have children does not work. No child should ever be unwanted, every child deserves loving parents. This is the world that abortion bans create.

Nobody is pro-abortion. Nobody likes or wants women to have abortions, especially the women getting the procedure...it is NOT pleasant. Pro-choice supporters would be thrilled if there's never another abortion again, as long there were no unwanted pregnancies.

The best, statistically proven method to prevent abortions is education and easy access to contraception. Full stop.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

More like banning any medical procedures during pregnancy will force people to get then somewhere else. Also killing someone who is using our body without your consent is self defense.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

I see you lack basic understanding in science and human development, and it’s unfortunately infected your opinions, feelings, and thoughts on the matter to the point you’re too far gone down the rabbit hole to ever come back to reality.

Good luck down there!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Aborting a non viable pregnancy isn't and never will be murder. In fact, stopping women with non-viable pregnancies from getting an abortion often can be murder itself. Therefore abortion != murder

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Banning abortion doesn't stop abortion, it just shifts it to a black market where women are far more likely to die.

Perhaps, but it will likely at least severely reduce it. It's certainly not appropriate to assume that every woman who would have had an abortion when it's safe and legal would also do so when it's dangerous and illegal. More likely, it would lead to a rise in babies given up for adoption.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (17 children)

There is historical precedent that your assumptions are not the case. Assumptions are deadly if you use them to ignore the world around you.

And it's not like there are great systems in place to support babies given up for adoption, even if that was what happened.

load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Honest question. How do you reconcile your claim about not being anti-lgbt when the GOP is very vocally and openly pushing anti-lgbt messaging and legislation.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You know that someone can agree with most things in a platform and hate other things about it right?

The fact that they said they’re not anti-lgbt instead of saying they’re pro-lgbt implies that lgbt issues in general are lower on their list of priorities. They may not agree with the anti lgbt stuff but it isn’t important to them anyway.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I'm aware of that first part, but I'm not quite sure how it's possible to make a moral argument that basic human rights shouldn't be towards the very top of your list. The unfortunate reality of the matter is that even in the off chance your local R isn't completely awful, the policies that will be implemented on a national level if they manage to take control of the presidency again are. Voting for an R is a tacit endorsement of those policies.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They’re a Republican. They don’t view LGBT issues as a human rights issue in the first place. It’s a political issue for them. Hence why they can reconcile that their opinion vs the party platform.

Again, that’s why they said they’re not anti-lgbt rather than saying they’re pro-lgbt.

They can disagree with the Republican Party on LGBT issues, because it’s a political issue for them and not a human rights issue.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Idk man. It just seems like you’re saying “political issue” but what you mean is “doesn’t affect them”.

And I think the whole they’re not “anti” these people they just don’t care enough about them to vote for them to have basic protections is a tough sell. At some point it’s a forced choice, and sitting out isn’t really an option.

I guess maybe it’s how they truly see it, but it doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This sounds an awful lot like a repudiation of "vote blue no matter who" but from the opposite angle. The fact of the matter is that different people place different priorities on different issues. Everyone these days seems to think that all people need to have the perfect opinion on every subject but I think that's crazy. Take the wins you can get and leave the rest for later.

Personally I think that means that Democrats need to bide their time on several issues. If they would make a commitment to let guns, abortion (would have been easier 4 years ago), and LGBT issues lie for an entire election cycle, and make the general electorate believe that's a real promise, they could get so much other shit done. I know people here are going to start in on how such a statement is unfair to trans people, women, victims of gun violence, etc, but there's no denying the fact that those issues are sticking points for huge amounts of voters.

You don't even have to concede any arguments to do what I'm suggesting either. All you need to do is acknowledge that we have other things we could work on before we cross those bridges. If you look at polling data most Americans agree with Democrats on solutions to problems like healthcare, the tax code, and labor laws. If we could implement even semi progressive laws around these issues we would improve the lives of everyone in America, including those most impacted by the issues above. Why would we not do that and then go back to our usual bickering along political lines?

When it comes down to it we're not gaining anything by insisting on purity tests for these positions that only drive voter engagement for conservatives. Just table them for now and work on what can realistically be accomplished. The alternative is not more progress for more people, it's more of this culture war bullshit, and that doesn't help anyone at all. Isn't that the worst option on the table?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Democrats need to bide their time on several issues.... LGBT issues lie for an entire election cycle

The problem is a lot of damage can be done in one election cycle. Just this year so far? 590 anti-trans bills have been proposed and 85 anti-trans bills have passed in the US: https://translegislation.com

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You know I voted for Hillary and Biden even though both trashed the idea of Medicare For All. That’s a huge issue for me, but you don’t really get to pick your politicians. You only pick the lesser of two evils. Republicans don’t like Dems. They might not love Trump or even Ted Cruz but for some people that’s their lesser of two evils. So I can’t speak for this other commenter but I can understand why you might vote for someone who doesn’t share your values

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

And for plenty of policy points that's not an issue. When we're on the topic of basic human rights, I'm not entirely sure how you* can handwave those abuses away because you want lower taxes.

* generic you

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Many many people believe that healthcare is a basic human right, right up there with LGBT issues.

Putting Medicare for all on the same footing or higher than LGBT issues, because healthcare affects literally everyone.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well yeah, that's because it is. Performing human sacrifices for the profit gods, which is what we are currently doing, is bad.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you looking for conversation here or do you just want to be right?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (8 children)

If there's an answer that isn't basically "well they're not on my priority list so they can get fucked", I'd love to hear it. We're not talking about some relatively benign issue like zoning laws or whether or not we should introduce a new sales tax to fund the park system. Sitting by complacently is actively tacitly supporting the policies trying to further these abuses, and it's not some trivial issue that doesn't matter.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

think murder is abohherent, baby murder especially so. I don't know when the right to life begins, so I err on the side of caution

Why stop there? You have no idea, right? So why do you masturbate or use condoms? You're killing millions of potential babies!

If you don't know, you should err on the side of caution for the rights of the people who you do know are real.

Or maybe you should just stay out of it, because as you say, you don't know. Leave it to the scientists and doctors who DO know and who almost universally support abortion access.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why stop there? You have no idea, right? So why do you masturbate or use condoms? You're killing millions of potential babies!

Not the guy you're responding to, but you have a point. Coincidentally, most religions are also against both, so at least you can't accuse them of being inconsistent on the issue of reproduction.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

so at least you can’t accuse them of being inconsistent on the issue of reproduction.

This person I'm responding to isn't religious.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago

Thank you for your response.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

I'm on team "glad you responded" but I still wanna respond to 2 things you said.

First, a lot of anti-abortion people want the abortion conversation to end at "this is murder", but how do you address the bodily autonomy argument? Even if I accept any and all abortions as the full death of a complete person, why are women compelled to donate their bodies to save another person? I don't support forced organ donations to save lives, and by that logic I also do not support forced pregnancies. Any opinion on that perspective?

Christian nationalism isn't complicated in what it is, it is just the desire/push/beliefs from the people that want a nation with an explicitly christian government, a christian theocracy. If it completely took over everything, freedom of religion would be dead, everything would be christian. To try and rephrase it bluntly, Christian nationalism is the desire for and work towards a Christian nation. Some people take it seriously, some people don't, some people outright support it, others deny it even is a real concept.

Edit to add: if you aren't anti-lgbtq, will you call your representatives that you vote for and emphatically tell them so? The difference in opinions between conservatives and their politicians about lgbtq is something I hear from most conservatives I've talked to, but it makes me sad to see they don't really care beyond saying "I'm not anti-lgbtq". If you vote for an anti-lgbtq politician because of other policies they support, please at least tell them you don't agree with their anti-lgbtq stance. It is literally the least amount of help I can think of to ask for.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago

Unfortunately, many Republican elected representatives are, to varying degrees, anti-LGBT and do support Christian encroachment into non-religious people's lives.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

Right on. I don’t share your values but I’m glad to see you here participating and sharing.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Kudos for sharing. Feel free to ignore those who challenge your values. It takes a bunches of mental energy to argue and it isn't necessarily worth it to argue.

With that said, I will still would like to ask you a question, if you are up for it.

How did you form your values?

I only ask because it is easy, when you are raised as Christian, to uncritically accept the teaching, values, and views of those around you as your own.

As kids we are conditioned through school, parents, and in general just information asymmetry to accept what adults say as fact and not question it. It is easy to carry that same tendency over into our values and viewpoints. Kids and adults have a hard time separating fact from opinion. We tend to treat widely held beliefs as fact instead of as the opinions they actually are.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

Why do you consider conception as the earliest point? What about at arousal? 😜

https://youtu.be/fUspLVStPbk

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

Murder of a consciousness is abhorent, but that doesn't really happen. So are you also against pulling the plug on the brain dead?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Christian nationalism is just the merging of Christian and American identity. “America is a Christian nation”. You hear similar often from pandering and or deranged Republicans

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Being a fetus doesn't excuse a foreign body's presence inside of mine. I do not intend to be pregnant and if my partner's sperm invades my body when I do not want it I will take every step to eliminate it or the process that follows it. A fetus isn't important. If anything forcing someone to exist is the utmost violation of bodily autonomy. As they say, just because something is natural doesn't make it good.