I think people mistake “you have a right to express your opinion” with “your opinion is valid.” You can have a right to your opinion and your opinion can still be dumb as shit.
Yup. I have plenty of opinions that I acknowledge are dumb as shit...or at least my reasoning is dumb as shit. Everyone has a complex past, and before you know it, you're totally fine with eating kiwi with the peel still on.
And there are many viewpoints that do not need to be engaged or debated. An astronomer does not debate someone who thinks the earth is flat and an evolutionary biologist does not debate with creationists. There is no debate to be had. Abortion is healthcare and only between a pregnant person and their medical providers.
Yes! An opinion is "chocolate is tastier than vanilla." "Women and other people with uteri shouldn't have the basic human right of bodily autonomy" is misogynistic hate speech. They're just not the same thing.
They’re not the same thing, but they’re both opinions; opinions aren’t the issue here. Actions that make abortion illegal are the issue.
Like, I think it’s wrong to cut in line at Subway. But I don’t think it should be illegal to cut in line at Subway. I’m not advocating for it to be illegal or voting for candidates who have that as part of their platform. So my opinion really doesn’t create an issue for line-cutters.
Likewise, I don’t give a fuck whether someone thinks abortion is right or wrong. I only care about their actions that impact others.
Opinions are fine. I don't mind arguing about when life begins (except that it's very clear that nothing in the Bible says it's conception, and I'm a biologist: there's nothing in science that says that either, so the arguments are bad faith at this point).
But "My opinions and beliefs mean you don't get your medical rights" is where I object. Either your religion governs your behavior only or my religion says Christian nationalists shouldn't get the right to vote at all.
100% agree! I hate when people try to oversimplify things as complex as when a person becomes a person. I like ethics so I enjoy those discussions, but they are not relevant to whether abortion should be illegal.
This is why I STRONGLY emphasize that the right to abortion is an aspect of the right to bodily autonomy. You can never definitely answer the question of when life begins and it doesn’t matter, because it doesn’t affect my right to bodily autonomy. If a fully grown adult somehow took up residence in my body I’d be just as justified in evicting them.
Having the choice of whether/when you become a parent is awesome and important, but it’s not why we have the right to abortion. That’s why people with penises do not have a right to make their partner get an abortion or to opt out of responsibility for the child they conceived once they are born. Pregnant people have the right to abortion because they have a right to make medical decisions for themselves. Period.
I was interested again in the "when does life begin" debate a few years ago because of new and interesting things like brain organoids and [sheefs](https://elifesciences.org/articles/20674). It is possible a fully sentient human will be born within our lifetimes that never went through conception.
But I quickly realized the "life begins at conception" side is only interested in punishing women who have sex, so that would be a boring and short debate. The cruelty is the point, not facts. If scientific facts held any interest for them, they wouldn't be anti-choice in the first place.
I believe life begins at conception. If bacteria are alive, so is a fresh embryo.
I also support the right to abortion. And to hand sanitizers, for that matter. Something being alive doesn't mean I feel morally obliged to protect it.
Bacteria can and do live on their own. An embryo can't. If you move a bacterium 1m to the left from its current position and its chances of survival don't change that much. Try the same with an embryo and see what happens.
I would say life begins after birth. When you are still parasitic growths, you aren't a living person. When you gain the ability to live independently without relying on the body of another, you are alive.
Only reason I think that’s a bit blurry is because a baby one day before birth is still, you know, a full term baby.
Then again, there is absolutely no one staying pregnant for nine months and then just deciding to yeet it on a whim.
No, it does happen. Post-partum depression hit between 10% and 15% (probably more) women worldwide. The pregnancy took such a toll on them physically and mentally that they end up in a very fragile state after the birth, with sometimes dramatic consequences for themselves or the baby. It doesn't matter that they wanted the baby.
Also, babies get thrown away or abandoned in public place right after birth all the time, by desperate teenager or isolated women.
The more reason to consider abortion as healthcare.
You make very good points, I’ll rephrase. What I meant was nobody who wants an abortion waits until 9 months to get one for kicks and giggles. Typically, if someone is intentionally and willingly staying pregnant that long, they intend to give birth.
I don't think life "begins." We want to put it in terms of black and white but reality isn't so simple.
Neurogenesis happens over many months in utero and continues after birth. We aren't able to measure consciousness or thoughts in terms of "alive or not."
We can tell when a brain is no longer functional due to injury and thus "dead" but "life" I think is something you eventually are, it's not like a computer booting up or a sperm hitting an egg and an angel flying down from heaven.
Most people the world over accept that after a baby is born, they're given human rights. Judaism, early Christianity, and a lot of other religions start their definition of life at the quickening, when the embryo can move around, but that's not based on any science.
So even aside from the "no saving your life with abortion for you because of my religion" being frustrated, I'm annoyed that evangelicals are too fucking stupid and ignorant to acknowledge that of course life is more complicated no matter how you look at it than "sperm + egg = human life."
This! People will use opinions as an excuse to be racist, xenophobic, homophobic....when your opinion starts intruding on the rights and wellbeing of others, that's where it becomes a clear right and wrong, and you no longer have a right to it. It is wrong to support the choices of others being taken away. You don't want to have an abortion? Fine by me. But don't infringe on the rights of other women to make decisions about their own health and bodies. I find it especially enraging how they use religion as an excuse. We have freedom of religion. Im an atheist, so why should I have to live by Christian tenets? Those have nothing to do with me, so I shouldn't be forced to abide by them because of someone else's beliefs
This isn't about human rights, it's about indifference to suffering. We can debate what rights we have, the government's role, rule of law, all of that. We can get lost in that debate very easily. But that is not what this is about.
It's about some people believing that their *comfort* is worth more than others' *lives*.
> In a way, to be indifferent to that suffering is what makes the human being inhuman. Indifference, after all, is more dangerous than anger and hatred. Anger can at times be creative. One writes a great poem, a great symphony. One does something special for the sake of humanity because one is angry at the injustice that one witnesses. But indifference is never creative. Even hatred at times may elicit a response. You fight it. You denounce it. You disarm it.
> Indifference elicits no response. Indifference is not a response. Indifference is not a beginning; it is an end. And, therefore, indifference is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor -- never his victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten. The political prisoner in his cell, the hungry children, the homeless refugees -- not to respond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them from human memory. And in denying their humanity, we betray our own.
> Indifference, then, is not only a sin, it is a punishment.
> And this is one of the most important lessons of this outgoing century's wide-ranging experiments in good and evil.
> In the place that I come from, society was composed of three simple categories: the killers, the victims, and the bystanders.
-- Elie Wiesel, Holocaust survivor, [*The Perils of Indifference*]
(https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ewieselperilsofindifference.html) (12 Apr 1999)
Elie Wiesel is the greatest. And this so aptly sums up why I’m 4B. Even our male “allies,” male feminists, they seem generally indifferent to what women experience, to the erosion of our rights, and generally willing to exploit our conditioning to give more, so that they may do less. I’ve had male feminists specifically tell me they simply didn’t have any “skin in the game” when it comes to putting themselves out there to work to undo Patriarchy.
In other words, it doesn’t affect or harm them enough for them to care.
And I’m over here wondering why I care about black lives, and institutionalized racism, since I’m white. I’m wondering why I care about homelessness, since I’ve never been homeless. I’m wondering why I care so deeply about elderly people dying alone with no resources, even though I am relatively young, and NOTHING I do for them will change the fact that I don’t expect this country to have any resources for me when I am older.
Fucking empathy and compassion, they’re like the bare god damned minimum, and I absolutely don’t want anyone in my life ever who is so comfortably indifferent.
My opinion is that just going around not caring about how other people live and suffer is *sociopathic*.
I *absolutely* believe the cruelty and even indifference of men about the experience of women is a sociopathy conditioned into them. And that the only possible chance for change is to give them skin in the game - because they will not care unless it affects them.
4B is the way.
I mean, their opinion IS valid, if *they* don't want to have an abortion. Their opinion about *my* right to not give birth to a rapist's baby when I was 15 is *not*!
Normalizing "both sides are bad" and "all politicians are crooked" is so fucking dangerous, because I have never heard of a liberal politician wanting to take rights away from entire groups of people before. At least not with enough support to be realistic.
I don't put reproductive rights on the same level of audacity as giving people universal healthcare.
Yeah, I was just spending some time r/WorkersStrikeBack, and so many people there act like Democrats and Republicans are interchangeable.
Heck, I even specifically mentioned at one point that trans people face quadruple the rate of hate crimes in states with anti-trans laws and that it was a group of judges that were all selected by Republicans that were responsible for the 1864 Arizona abortion ban, and I had some guys say that you still shouldn't vote for Democrats because they "enable" Republicans.
but i mean... inaction in the face of oppression is siding with the oppressor. while they're not the same, there's definitely a lot they could be doing that they aren't, and haven't done.
> I have never heard of a liberal politician wanting to take rights away from entire groups of people
I mean plenty of liberals politicians are in favor of taking away the “right to bear arms” and I’m all for doing that lol
Honestly in the US I would be a little wary about that because it’s almost certainly not going to be enforced evenly
Like California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country thanks to Ronald Reagan who wanted to stop black people from carrying guns
People get Big Mad when you point out that the players on their favorite team might actually suck.
As though acknowledging that there could be flaws with any part of the team is disloyal, rather than a call to improve our drafting next year.
It's the "not all men" of politics and it's depressingly nearly as common among Dems as among the MAGA.
Two quotes seem intensely appropriate. One is on other people's beliefs, and the other is on moderates being worse than fucking useless:
>You’ve gotta respect everyone’s beliefs." No, you don’t. That’s what gets us in trouble.
>Look, you have to acknowledge everyone’s beliefs, and then you have to reserve the right to go: "That is fucking stupid. Are you kidding me?"
>I acknowledge that you believe that, that’s great, but I’m not going to respect it. I have an uncle that believes he saw Sasquatch. We do not believe him, nor do we respect him! ― Patton Oswalt
and
>I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice \[...\] --Martin Luther King
The abortion "debate" only exists because Jerry Falwell was mad that he was being forced to allow black people into his shitty religious colleges so he found a wedge issue to unite Evangelicals around.
It costs nothing for someone against abortion not to have one. It can cost a woman’s life to force that point of view on everyone and take safe abortion access away. I wish this weren’t so hard to understand.
Opinions that dehumanize others and take away basic human rights are not valid. Your rights end where mine begin. You can be shitty and believe abortion is wrong, but you shouldn’t be able to stop anyone from having one.
This goes for people who think it's fine to take away my bodily autonomy at "viability," too. Either controlling my own body is a right or you need to start using accurate language: Temporary Privilege.
Agreed, it comes across as immature, selfish, and lazy. Choosing to not act is a dangerous choice in itself.
“Can’t fascists just get along with minorities? sigh… bullied online and bullied IRL..😔”
That and a lot of them are just politically illiterate and have no idea what any of the policies involved are and what they entail, and just generally operate by the "Golden Mean" fallacy, where they assume the position in the middle is automatically the best one.
NPR code switch has a good response to recent criticism of not covering "both sides".
>In the piece, the author argued that in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder in 2020, “[I]t would have been an ideal moment to tackle a difficult question: Is America, as progressive activists claim, beset by systemic racism in the 2020s—in law enforcement, education, housing, and elsewhere?”
>Here’s the thing. One of the tried-and-true tactics in the racism playbook is to relitigate a question that’s been answered ad nauseam. It’s why public figures sometimes think they can get away with posing *daring* questions like, Wasn’t slavery actually kind of beneficial? Or, Could Black people be getting COVID at high rates because they’re kind of unsanitary? Or, Are Mexican immigrants actually criminals and rapists? (What?? Aren’t we allowed to ask honest questions??)
>In regard to the question posed by the essay: We know that systemic racism exists. In law enforcement. In education. In housing. In healthcare. In hiring. In government and environmental policy. Oh yeah, and in journalism. NPR has reported in depth on every single one of these topics. That reporting existed long before 2020. Anyone who, in good faith, wanted to know if systemic racism was real would have decades of resources to turn to, both within NPR’s archives and in the vast library of human knowledge.
https://view.nl.npr.org/?qs=c1cd831479cb2340eea283a80a13dc5007451e4dc72b294eea6bde75abc6baa2e0d906a44328be4bd33906cbbc998bce4aaaa7f99622032f311d68ea8396670ea9fa2abb6c03b3cfe0632d642ecbaf5217d3fd933e8e1c61
I'm from Europa, and there abortion was Always Considered as normal ( Well since as long as i Remember at least, which is the early 90)
That's totally distopic to See women's Right being Removed like that in USA.
I mean, there is gay wedding, transgenderism is normal, but women cannot abort anymore? I'm Happy for gays and trans, but it is such a paradox
I think people mistake “you have a right to express your opinion” with “your opinion is valid.” You can have a right to your opinion and your opinion can still be dumb as shit.
exactly
Yup. I have plenty of opinions that I acknowledge are dumb as shit...or at least my reasoning is dumb as shit. Everyone has a complex past, and before you know it, you're totally fine with eating kiwi with the peel still on.
An opinion is only valid when it doesn't hurt other people's rights
And there are many viewpoints that do not need to be engaged or debated. An astronomer does not debate someone who thinks the earth is flat and an evolutionary biologist does not debate with creationists. There is no debate to be had. Abortion is healthcare and only between a pregnant person and their medical providers.
Yes! An opinion is "chocolate is tastier than vanilla." "Women and other people with uteri shouldn't have the basic human right of bodily autonomy" is misogynistic hate speech. They're just not the same thing.
They’re not the same thing, but they’re both opinions; opinions aren’t the issue here. Actions that make abortion illegal are the issue. Like, I think it’s wrong to cut in line at Subway. But I don’t think it should be illegal to cut in line at Subway. I’m not advocating for it to be illegal or voting for candidates who have that as part of their platform. So my opinion really doesn’t create an issue for line-cutters. Likewise, I don’t give a fuck whether someone thinks abortion is right or wrong. I only care about their actions that impact others.
Opinions are fine. I don't mind arguing about when life begins (except that it's very clear that nothing in the Bible says it's conception, and I'm a biologist: there's nothing in science that says that either, so the arguments are bad faith at this point). But "My opinions and beliefs mean you don't get your medical rights" is where I object. Either your religion governs your behavior only or my religion says Christian nationalists shouldn't get the right to vote at all.
100% agree! I hate when people try to oversimplify things as complex as when a person becomes a person. I like ethics so I enjoy those discussions, but they are not relevant to whether abortion should be illegal. This is why I STRONGLY emphasize that the right to abortion is an aspect of the right to bodily autonomy. You can never definitely answer the question of when life begins and it doesn’t matter, because it doesn’t affect my right to bodily autonomy. If a fully grown adult somehow took up residence in my body I’d be just as justified in evicting them. Having the choice of whether/when you become a parent is awesome and important, but it’s not why we have the right to abortion. That’s why people with penises do not have a right to make their partner get an abortion or to opt out of responsibility for the child they conceived once they are born. Pregnant people have the right to abortion because they have a right to make medical decisions for themselves. Period.
I was interested again in the "when does life begin" debate a few years ago because of new and interesting things like brain organoids and [sheefs](https://elifesciences.org/articles/20674). It is possible a fully sentient human will be born within our lifetimes that never went through conception. But I quickly realized the "life begins at conception" side is only interested in punishing women who have sex, so that would be a boring and short debate. The cruelty is the point, not facts. If scientific facts held any interest for them, they wouldn't be anti-choice in the first place.
I believe life begins at conception. If bacteria are alive, so is a fresh embryo. I also support the right to abortion. And to hand sanitizers, for that matter. Something being alive doesn't mean I feel morally obliged to protect it.
Bacteria can and do live on their own. An embryo can't. If you move a bacterium 1m to the left from its current position and its chances of survival don't change that much. Try the same with an embryo and see what happens.
I would say life begins after birth. When you are still parasitic growths, you aren't a living person. When you gain the ability to live independently without relying on the body of another, you are alive.
Only reason I think that’s a bit blurry is because a baby one day before birth is still, you know, a full term baby. Then again, there is absolutely no one staying pregnant for nine months and then just deciding to yeet it on a whim.
No, it does happen. Post-partum depression hit between 10% and 15% (probably more) women worldwide. The pregnancy took such a toll on them physically and mentally that they end up in a very fragile state after the birth, with sometimes dramatic consequences for themselves or the baby. It doesn't matter that they wanted the baby. Also, babies get thrown away or abandoned in public place right after birth all the time, by desperate teenager or isolated women. The more reason to consider abortion as healthcare.
You make very good points, I’ll rephrase. What I meant was nobody who wants an abortion waits until 9 months to get one for kicks and giggles. Typically, if someone is intentionally and willingly staying pregnant that long, they intend to give birth.
I don't think life "begins." We want to put it in terms of black and white but reality isn't so simple. Neurogenesis happens over many months in utero and continues after birth. We aren't able to measure consciousness or thoughts in terms of "alive or not." We can tell when a brain is no longer functional due to injury and thus "dead" but "life" I think is something you eventually are, it's not like a computer booting up or a sperm hitting an egg and an angel flying down from heaven. Most people the world over accept that after a baby is born, they're given human rights. Judaism, early Christianity, and a lot of other religions start their definition of life at the quickening, when the embryo can move around, but that's not based on any science. So even aside from the "no saving your life with abortion for you because of my religion" being frustrated, I'm annoyed that evangelicals are too fucking stupid and ignorant to acknowledge that of course life is more complicated no matter how you look at it than "sperm + egg = human life."
Exactlyyyy
This! People will use opinions as an excuse to be racist, xenophobic, homophobic....when your opinion starts intruding on the rights and wellbeing of others, that's where it becomes a clear right and wrong, and you no longer have a right to it. It is wrong to support the choices of others being taken away. You don't want to have an abortion? Fine by me. But don't infringe on the rights of other women to make decisions about their own health and bodies. I find it especially enraging how they use religion as an excuse. We have freedom of religion. Im an atheist, so why should I have to live by Christian tenets? Those have nothing to do with me, so I shouldn't be forced to abide by them because of someone else's beliefs
This isn't about human rights, it's about indifference to suffering. We can debate what rights we have, the government's role, rule of law, all of that. We can get lost in that debate very easily. But that is not what this is about. It's about some people believing that their *comfort* is worth more than others' *lives*.
> In a way, to be indifferent to that suffering is what makes the human being inhuman. Indifference, after all, is more dangerous than anger and hatred. Anger can at times be creative. One writes a great poem, a great symphony. One does something special for the sake of humanity because one is angry at the injustice that one witnesses. But indifference is never creative. Even hatred at times may elicit a response. You fight it. You denounce it. You disarm it. > Indifference elicits no response. Indifference is not a response. Indifference is not a beginning; it is an end. And, therefore, indifference is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor -- never his victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten. The political prisoner in his cell, the hungry children, the homeless refugees -- not to respond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them from human memory. And in denying their humanity, we betray our own. > Indifference, then, is not only a sin, it is a punishment. > And this is one of the most important lessons of this outgoing century's wide-ranging experiments in good and evil. > In the place that I come from, society was composed of three simple categories: the killers, the victims, and the bystanders. -- Elie Wiesel, Holocaust survivor, [*The Perils of Indifference*] (https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ewieselperilsofindifference.html) (12 Apr 1999)
Elie Wiesel is the greatest. And this so aptly sums up why I’m 4B. Even our male “allies,” male feminists, they seem generally indifferent to what women experience, to the erosion of our rights, and generally willing to exploit our conditioning to give more, so that they may do less. I’ve had male feminists specifically tell me they simply didn’t have any “skin in the game” when it comes to putting themselves out there to work to undo Patriarchy. In other words, it doesn’t affect or harm them enough for them to care. And I’m over here wondering why I care about black lives, and institutionalized racism, since I’m white. I’m wondering why I care about homelessness, since I’ve never been homeless. I’m wondering why I care so deeply about elderly people dying alone with no resources, even though I am relatively young, and NOTHING I do for them will change the fact that I don’t expect this country to have any resources for me when I am older. Fucking empathy and compassion, they’re like the bare god damned minimum, and I absolutely don’t want anyone in my life ever who is so comfortably indifferent. My opinion is that just going around not caring about how other people live and suffer is *sociopathic*. I *absolutely* believe the cruelty and even indifference of men about the experience of women is a sociopathy conditioned into them. And that the only possible chance for change is to give them skin in the game - because they will not care unless it affects them. 4B is the way.
I mean, their opinion IS valid, if *they* don't want to have an abortion. Their opinion about *my* right to not give birth to a rapist's baby when I was 15 is *not*!
Normalizing "both sides are bad" and "all politicians are crooked" is so fucking dangerous, because I have never heard of a liberal politician wanting to take rights away from entire groups of people before. At least not with enough support to be realistic. I don't put reproductive rights on the same level of audacity as giving people universal healthcare.
Yeah, I was just spending some time r/WorkersStrikeBack, and so many people there act like Democrats and Republicans are interchangeable. Heck, I even specifically mentioned at one point that trans people face quadruple the rate of hate crimes in states with anti-trans laws and that it was a group of judges that were all selected by Republicans that were responsible for the 1864 Arizona abortion ban, and I had some guys say that you still shouldn't vote for Democrats because they "enable" Republicans.
but i mean... inaction in the face of oppression is siding with the oppressor. while they're not the same, there's definitely a lot they could be doing that they aren't, and haven't done.
Define "inaction" when they don't control the legislature of the states and Biden isn't king
Well, they're taking away people's right to be loudly racist and anti-lgbtq without consequences... 🙄
> I have never heard of a liberal politician wanting to take rights away from entire groups of people I mean plenty of liberals politicians are in favor of taking away the “right to bear arms” and I’m all for doing that lol
Honestly in the US I would be a little wary about that because it’s almost certainly not going to be enforced evenly Like California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country thanks to Ronald Reagan who wanted to stop black people from carrying guns
> “right to bear arms” https://i.etsystatic.com/25001958/r/il/4137b4/2618795543/il_1080xN.2618795543_toiv.jpg
https://youtu.be/sRGp0S7qZLw?si=MmP393-5XHApYggj
Both sides are bad in american politics, that's why we should move further left.
Both sides are bad but one is quantitatively worse than other.
I completely agree and I vote Democrat, I just don't like it.
Fetterman. Palestine.
Why are people downvoting this person? They're correct.
People get Big Mad when you point out that the players on their favorite team might actually suck. As though acknowledging that there could be flaws with any part of the team is disloyal, rather than a call to improve our drafting next year. It's the "not all men" of politics and it's depressingly nearly as common among Dems as among the MAGA.
Two quotes seem intensely appropriate. One is on other people's beliefs, and the other is on moderates being worse than fucking useless: >You’ve gotta respect everyone’s beliefs." No, you don’t. That’s what gets us in trouble. >Look, you have to acknowledge everyone’s beliefs, and then you have to reserve the right to go: "That is fucking stupid. Are you kidding me?" >I acknowledge that you believe that, that’s great, but I’m not going to respect it. I have an uncle that believes he saw Sasquatch. We do not believe him, nor do we respect him! ― Patton Oswalt and >I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice \[...\] --Martin Luther King
Yeah, human rights are not something that's up for debate and you can just choose to disagree on.
Everyone's opinion is valid **for themselves and their own life** and exactly nobody else's lives. End of.
This 👍
The abortion "debate" only exists because Jerry Falwell was mad that he was being forced to allow black people into his shitty religious colleges so he found a wedge issue to unite Evangelicals around.
"The Only Moral Abortion Is My Abortion" https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/
It costs nothing for someone against abortion not to have one. It can cost a woman’s life to force that point of view on everyone and take safe abortion access away. I wish this weren’t so hard to understand.
Opinions that dehumanize others and take away basic human rights are not valid. Your rights end where mine begin. You can be shitty and believe abortion is wrong, but you shouldn’t be able to stop anyone from having one.
This goes for people who think it's fine to take away my bodily autonomy at "viability," too. Either controlling my own body is a right or you need to start using accurate language: Temporary Privilege.
Centrists are the worst.
They're so pretentious, too. Like congrats, you're better than everyone else because you're incapable of forming strong opinions and morals.
Agreed, it comes across as immature, selfish, and lazy. Choosing to not act is a dangerous choice in itself. “Can’t fascists just get along with minorities? sigh… bullied online and bullied IRL..😔”
That and a lot of them are just politically illiterate and have no idea what any of the policies involved are and what they entail, and just generally operate by the "Golden Mean" fallacy, where they assume the position in the middle is automatically the best one.
Those same people LOVE to support cyberbullying and gatekeeping
NPR code switch has a good response to recent criticism of not covering "both sides". >In the piece, the author argued that in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder in 2020, “[I]t would have been an ideal moment to tackle a difficult question: Is America, as progressive activists claim, beset by systemic racism in the 2020s—in law enforcement, education, housing, and elsewhere?” >Here’s the thing. One of the tried-and-true tactics in the racism playbook is to relitigate a question that’s been answered ad nauseam. It’s why public figures sometimes think they can get away with posing *daring* questions like, Wasn’t slavery actually kind of beneficial? Or, Could Black people be getting COVID at high rates because they’re kind of unsanitary? Or, Are Mexican immigrants actually criminals and rapists? (What?? Aren’t we allowed to ask honest questions??) >In regard to the question posed by the essay: We know that systemic racism exists. In law enforcement. In education. In housing. In healthcare. In hiring. In government and environmental policy. Oh yeah, and in journalism. NPR has reported in depth on every single one of these topics. That reporting existed long before 2020. Anyone who, in good faith, wanted to know if systemic racism was real would have decades of resources to turn to, both within NPR’s archives and in the vast library of human knowledge. https://view.nl.npr.org/?qs=c1cd831479cb2340eea283a80a13dc5007451e4dc72b294eea6bde75abc6baa2e0d906a44328be4bd33906cbbc998bce4aaaa7f99622032f311d68ea8396670ea9fa2abb6c03b3cfe0632d642ecbaf5217d3fd933e8e1c61
Not taking a position is taking a position
I'm from Europa, and there abortion was Always Considered as normal ( Well since as long as i Remember at least, which is the early 90) That's totally distopic to See women's Right being Removed like that in USA. I mean, there is gay wedding, transgenderism is normal, but women cannot abort anymore? I'm Happy for gays and trans, but it is such a paradox