Comment by ToucanLoucan
2 years ago
> 2. Many people who are opposed to abortion rights have legitimately held moral concerns that are not simply because they have no respect for women's rights.
Then they are free to not get an abortion. I don't get an abortion every day, it's pretty easy to accomplish. They do not get to use the letter of law to interfere in other people's medical decisions and care, and they most definitely should not have the ability to use the letter of the law to get unhealthy women killed to suit their precious morals.
Like, genuinely, if you are near a woman who is having a serious medical condition where her baby is killing her, there is no, and I repeat, NO version of that where letting an adult, alive, otherwise viable person die in the hopes that the clump of cells killing her might make it. That does not make sense under any moral system at all. We don't even take organs from recently deceased people without their permission before they croak, and some people think they have the right to demand someone lay down their entire actual life in the hope a baby MIGHT be born and live? Fuck that. Stupid.
> 3. Roe v. Wade was the decision of 9 people.
Sod public opinion. The public is wrong all the goddamn time. One would argue they're wrong more often than they aren't, and the more of em there are, and the louder they are, the more likely they're fucking wrong.
> Social media facilitates communication. As long as there is sexism and freedom of communication, there will be people making money off of facilitating sexist communication because there will be people making money off of facilitating communication writ large.
This is such a defeatist attitude. There will also always be revenge porn, child abuse material, beheading videos and people putting monkeys in blenders. Do we allow that everywhere too then? Since we cannot guarantee total blackout on objectionable content, we just wild west it? Fucking nonsense. We decide constantly by way of moderation on every service and website that exists what is permitted, and what is not, and there is no reason at all that those same things cannot be enshrined in law, with steep penalties for services that fuck up and host it.
it appears you want to debate the abortion issue on the merits when i’ve already said i agree with you. my point about public opinion was only in reference to public opinion being a gauge of general sexist attitudes and the degree to which being anti-abortion is intrinsically out of sexist motivations vs other differing beliefs.
on your second point, much of the material you’re describing is actively illegal - which is a different case. i agree with your point around moderation but feel conflicted with my intuition that the rules impacting speech should generally be publicly known and generally expansive. i am not sure what the reconciliation is. but i also don’t really know who andrew tate is, so can only really speak in the abstract