Non-religious Republicans of Lemmy, how do you reconcile your non-religious convictions with a party that bases a lot of its policies on religion?
Non-religious Republicans of Lemmy, how do you reconcile your non-religious convictions with a party that bases a lot of its policies on religion?
E.g. abortion rights, anti-LGBTQ, contempt for atheism, Christian nationalism, etc.
You're viewing part of a thread.
I honestly wouldn't know where to start looking for data on that. But I didn't make the claim that this was definitely going to happen, just that it was the likely outcome, based on the common sense assumption that if abortion access wasn't easy, safe, and anonymous, and involved a significant risk of injury or death for the mother, more women would likely find it less risky to carry their pregnancy to term and give up the baby for adoption if they haven't changed their mind on it by then.
Also, they may simply choose to use birth control more often, and/or insist on their partners wearing a condom.
From my point of view, I find the claim that making abortion illegal would not prevent even a single one from occurring far more incredulous and therefore requiring a higher level of proof.
Alright I'm gunna take this point by point because broadly I understand what you are trying to get at but you have a few details that bother me and I feel derail the whole thing.
But I didn’t make the claim that this was definitely going to happen, just that it was the likely outcome
Me neither, I was talking about historical precedent, not some hard and fast rule of the universe.
based on the common sense assumption that if abortion access wasn’t easy, safe, and anonymous, and involved a significant risk of injury or death for the mother, more women would likely find it less risky to carry their pregnancy to term and give up the baby for adoption
First of all, with the "death or injury" part of this, I don't see why this is preferable. Seems like threatening their lives and happiness in the interest of forcing births. But also, this assumes there aren't other ways this can shake out in the end, and child abuse, abandonment and childhood homelessness, and human trafficking are all part of this topic and all things that increase when abortion is illegal. Your common sense assumption is based on a situationally perfect example, and it doesn't make sense when applied to real world experiences.
if they haven’t changed their mind on it by then.
This is just a piece of that bullshit take that argues women will learn to love their future babies if they are just forced to carry them long enough that abortions are more difficult and less legally accessable. Nah
From my point of view, I find the claim that making abortion illegal would not prevent even a single one from occurring far more incredulous and therefore requiring a higher level of proof.
Good thing I wasn't claiming that then. I'm saying the amount prevented would be negligible, not magically impossibly zero. It would likely be a small amount, and utterly overshadowed by the negative effects of banning abortions.
I honestly wouldn’t know where to start looking for data on that.
Generally any search engine is a good start, although you can go to google scholar if you want more academic and dense results. Then, just look for what experts/doctors are saying. Try to stick to groups that verify each other and are verified by outside groups, individual experts are fallible on who knows what, so trust the experts that other experts seem to trust. Generally unless you want to be a researcher yourself, these are the most trustworthy and direct sources for data and such you can possibly get.
Me neither, I was talking about historical precedent, not some hard and fast rule of the universe.
Well that's the thing, "historical precedent" means that this has actually demonstrably happened before, in which case there should be data on it. That's why I asked for proof. Which I understand you're most likely not going to be able to provide, since there obviously can't be any reliable data on the amount of clandestine abortions that happened before it was legalized.
First of all, with the "death or injury" part of this, I don't see why this is preferable. Seems like threatening their lives and happiness in the interest of forcing births.
I mean, I'm not a woman, but if I were, and I was given the choice between having an illegal procedure that had a good chance of injury or death (and no possible recourse), and carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term, I think I would choose the latter, because it seems a lot safer, no matter how inconvenient.
This is just a piece of that bullshit take that argues women will learn to love their future babies if they are just forced to carry them long enough that abortions are more difficult and less legally accessable. Nah
Well, in the absence of any hard data, I find that idea more convincing than the opposite, but again, I'll admit that I'm not a woman. But unless you are, you're likely no more of an expert on this than I am. And even if you are AND have gone through all this, you'd just be a single data point of anecdotal evidence, which would not be enough to convince me.
Good thing I wasn't claiming that then. I'm saying the amount prevented would be negligible, not magically impossibly zero. It would likely be a small amount, and utterly overshadowed by the negative effects of banning abortions.
You realize that for statistical purposes, "zero" and "negligible" are absolutely identical, right? It's called a null hypothesis, look it up.
You said this:
Perhaps, but it will likely at least severely reduce it.
I rejected that. I didn't say "there would be the same amount of abortions no matter the law" or anything like you seem to think. I don't think it would be "severely" reduced, and the negatives are extreme to the point of being unacceptable.
As for the data you want me to provide, I refer to the other things said. Unless you agree to also put in the effort to provide data to support your argument, I'm not going to put in all that effort for a random internet convo. Since you made the first claim (at least that I interacted with) ("Perhaps, but it will likely at least severely reduce it"), you can go first.
To be blunt I find the behaviour of demanding rigorous sources and academic honesty in internet arguments obnoxious and hypocritical. Very few people read them, they just want them as stamps of approval. And most conversations I see where someone is demanding sources, they are who should be logically providing sources to the conversation. It is just a silly part of internet culture dancing around pretending to be intellectualism. On a personal level I do love sources though, when they get posted. Not just for accuracy, I find them fun to read.
Okay, well I don't care enough about winning arguments on the Internet in order to write a whole research paper right now, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and call it a draw.
That is exactly my point. Glad you could see it my way.
Except for the draw part. This wasn't a competition, and in the nicest way possible, I'll just walk away from this thinking you are fully incorrect, and I assume you will do the same about me. "Agree to disagree" is more for people who actually know each other. Bye stranger!
Well, a draw means that neither of us is more correct than the other, at least that's what I'll take away from this.
Stop trying to be a winner on a fucking argument and just look for the facts instead you silly goose.
It’s not a draw. You look ridiculous.
Not as ridiculous as you, who, having made no arguments whatsoever, just comes barging in two days later just to give their opinion on the matter.
You sound like a petulant child out of their depth. An intelligent person would have a fairly easy time figuring out where I stand on the topic based on my response.
Forgive me for not being terminally online and Lemmy showing me older posts.
Yeah, I’m afraid that’s just an ad hominem, not an argument.
And no, I don’t have a problem figuring out where you stand on the issue, but since you apparently can’t even defend your position without resorting to insults, this seems to be a clear case of “you can’t reason anyone out of an opinion which by reason they never acquired”.
If you think you have the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body then I don’t give a flying fuck about anything you have to say, regardless of how you dress it up.
Don’t bother responding.
Of course I have a right to tell her that, whether or not she actually does it, or whether I have the right to violently enforce my opinion on her is an entirely different matter. But we were just arguing hypotheticals in this thread anyways.
FWIW I’m not convinced that banning abortion is the solution, but neither that making it easier and safer to access solves any problems, because neither do anything to address the root cause of why women feel like they need to have any abortions at all (excluding those necessary for medical reasons of course).
But sure, I’m clearly the petulant child here that’s out of my depth, because an intelligent person would have no problem seeing such nuances instead of resorting to politically popular catch phrases.
And it’s funny, isn’t it, because women tell men all the time what they ought to do with their bodies (go to work, make money, provide for the family, share the housework, don’t drink, don’t do drugs, the list goes on), yet as a man, I’m supposedly not allowed to even have an opinion what what a woman should do with hers? I’m sorry, that just sounds like blatant sexism, but I’m sure that as long as it’s in favor of women, you’re perfectly happy accepting that.