140
this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2026
140 points (98.6% liked)
Asklemmy
53558 readers
760 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not sure what exactly you are saying I am being incredulous about. You've brought up a lot of points here let me try to respond to each of them.
But, before I do that, I think you have lost what my original argument was about. I am asserting that the abortion debate will never end due to each side arguing about disparate things.
From what I understand, there are 3 primary ways that a debate can end; each side comes to an agreement about what is correct/what should be done, each side agrees that they will not be able to agree on what is correct, or one side decides they are unable to change the opinion of the other side.
Much of your posts discusses how one side (Pro-life) is incorrect. This does not touch on my central argument. If you proposed a situation in which one of the three outcomes could occur then that would disprove my belief.
You talk about education and how if Pro-life proponents actually cared about reducing abortions then they would fight for "real" education, not abstinence only. But this ignores one of their central beliefs; that abstinence only is the best education to reduce abortions.
Next you talk about dismantling social safety nets. From looking at a few Pro-life groups many of them do not really talk about changing social services for kids at all. The ones that do talk about increasing education, providing counseling, and promoting adoption as an option. I think what the misunderstanding might be is that many people who are Pro-life are also republican who also believe in a reduction of government social services in favor of private services. This assignment of belief is not transferable. What I mean by this is that being Pro-life does not necessarily equate to wanting to dismantle social safety nets.
You are right that child welfare is not the central part of their belief set. The central part is "life begins at conception. And ending a life is murder". Take for instance a hypothetical attorney general who focuses mode attention on petty shoplifting rather than murderers. I would hope that you would agree that they do not have the people's best interest at heart. This is how Pro-life proponents see this debate.
Last thing that you mentioned that I want to comment on is about single-issue voters. Of course I would encourage people to be aware about all the issues that affect them. But I do not agree with the demonization of single-issue voters. There is a reason why on a ballot you are not required to fill in every question or there might be an option for obtaining. If we were to legislate against people being single-issue voters then that might quickly devolve into a facsimile of literacy tests. Tests which have already been ruled as unconstitutional.
Since you're apparently lost, I'll make I'll summarize - the two sides talking past each other is how this issue was engineered. This is a manufactured debate designed for political purposes, and not for the welfare of kids. There's a reason this nonsense took hold in the US and nowhere else in the western world.
They absolutely don't believe that lol. They believe it is the only acceptable option (even it demonstrably doesn't work).
I simply don't understand why you insist on taking what everyone says at face value while ignoring their actual actions - how they vote.
I'm not demonizing them lol. I'm calling them stupid. If you're a single issue voter, you are completely captive. The guy who embodies your one key issue can do anything else they want because they know they have you. Single issue voters always end up being suckers in there end.
You are more talking about how this debate came to be. My central argument is more about how the debate cannot end.
I am not sure how abstinence only being the only acceptable option is any better than it being the best option. If anything it just strengthens my argument by showing that the Pro-life side will not accept any other form of education. And the Pro-choice side will also not accept any other form of education. This topic is a nonsequiter for both sides.
Again being Pro-life does not necessarily mean that they will vote for dismantling social services.
I simply don't understand why you insist on assuming that they are lying.
Is that not what you are doing? You are blaming them for voting how they do.
Ultimately I think we have reached that 3rd situation. I have decided that nothing I say is going to change your mind on this and am choosing to walk away.
The distinction is important because perpetuating their only acceptable option despite it being demonstrably ineffective indicates that child welfare is not the primacy concern in play.
And yet, despite it not being necessarily true it is absolutely true in every practical sense in reality.
I simply don't understand why you insist on taking political talking points as 100 percent sincere instead of looking at the tangible actions being taken in this space.
You don't even know what to do with this definition after quoting it. If course I "blame" them for voting how they do. Is assigning someone responsibility for their actions "demonizing" them? Lol. You're lost in the sauce bruh.
Other countries are able to have this discussion in far more healthy and productive ways. Instead of being content with your one insight that prolife and pro-choice are talking past each other, I suggest you ask yourself why that is, and why this positioning of the discussion is basically unique to the US. There's a whole wide world out there.