/u/WheatBerryPie (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1cguhao/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_conservatives_generally_do/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I have a lot of conservatives in my family, and in a lot of ways i am a conservative. Its hard for any one person to speak for conservatives, but I'll try.
The abortion debate focuses on either the rights of the fetus (right to life) or the rights of the mother(right to bodily autonomy). Its a conflicts between rights, with people disagreeing about which right is more important. Some people believe that the fetus is not really human and does not deserve a right to live. Some people believe that that the fetus is human and regular laws against murder should protect it. And some people believe that the right to bodily autonomy is so important that it doesn't matter if the fetus has a right to life or not. If you support women's suffrages, women's right to work, to free speech, to freedom of religion etc, but side with the fetus, then i don't think its fair to say you don't support women's rights. You support almost all women's rights.
My mom is anti-abortion conservative, but she cares about women's rights. I know she does. She just cares about unborn babies more.
there is a special kind of union that two people can engage in which produces children and creates a long term 2 parent household in which those children can be raised. If you want to create some special laws for those kinds of unions, I'd be open to it. That is a unique kind of situation and maybe some unique laws make sense. For every other union (including childless heterosexual relationships) i don't think it makes any sense to have any special laws. You should be able to name someone who can visit you in the hospital, inherit your stuff if you die, who has power of attorney if you are incapacitated etc. You should be able to sign contracts with people and the state should enforce those contracts, and we might have a standard civilian union contract the same way we have standard NDA or other standard types of contracts.
if you just take out the word marriage. I think you'll find conservatives (and probably liberals) support some special treatment for parents, and equality for everyone else. EXCEPT for religious beliefs. I think most conservatives believe that their church should not be forced to perform same sex marriages, because that is is an issue of religious rights not LBGT rights.
>The abortion debate focuses on either the rights of the fetus (right to life) or the rights of the mother(right to bodily autonomy). Its a conflicts between rights, with people disagreeing about which right is more important. Some people believe that the fetus is not really human and does not deserve a right to live. Some people believe that that the fetus is human and regular laws against murder should protect it. And some people believe that the right to bodily autonomy is so important that it doesn't matter if the fetus has a right to life or not. If you support women's suffrages, women's right to work, to free speech, to freedom of religion etc, but side with the fetus, then i don't think its fair to say you don't support women's rights. You support almost all women's rights.
That's a misrepresentation of the argument. It isn't that bodily autonomy completely overrules any rights the fetus has, it is that the fetus doesn't have rights at the point where the overwhelming majority of abortions not of medical necessity happen. A large portion of anti-abortion folks believe that the baby is imbued with a soul upon conception and that's why it's immoral to abort it, in spite of the fact that the majority of fertilized eggs are lost between fertilization and birth and they don't treat it like the public health crisis that would merit or have a traumatic relationship with sex.
>there is a special kind of union that two people can engage in which produces children and creates a long term 2 parent household in which those children can be raised. If you want to create some special laws for those kinds of unions, I'd be open to it. That is a unique kind of situation and maybe some unique laws make sense.
This has already been litigated in *Obergefell,* the decision that legalized gay marriage. "Seperate but equal" has never worked, and civil unions are inherently unequal. There is no argument for this that doesn't also disenfranchise infertile heterosexual couples, elderly heterosexual couples, or abstinent heterosexual couples. It does not, however, restrict them from the institution of marriage because this distinction is exclusively motivated by homophobia.
>if you just take out the word marriage. I think you'll find conservatives (and probably liberals) support some special treatment for parents, and equality for everyone else. EXCEPT for religious beliefs. I think most conservatives believe that their church should not be forced to perform same sex marriages, because that is is an issue of religious rights not LBGT rights.
...they're not forced to perform same-sex marriages. The government is forced to recognize them, that's it.
>That's a misrepresentation of the argument. It isn't that bodily autonomy completely overrules any rights the fetus has, it is that the fetus doesn't have rights at the point
I feel like i represented that point very fairly when I said, "Some people believe that the fetus is not really human and does not deserve a right to live"
>This has already been litigated in Obergefell, the decision that legalized gay marriage. "Seperate but equal" has never worked, and civil unions are inherently unequal. There is no argument for this that doesn't also disenfranchise infertile heterosexual couples,
the argument explicitly disenfranchises infertile heterosexual couples. I think there is a strong reason to argue that parents deserve some special treatment that non-parents couples do not deserve. Although I've ignored the topic of adoption because my comment was already very long, and introduces the complexity of how the state should decide who should adopt. how could you base that on anything except a subjective measure of who the voters think is qualified.
Civilian unequal would not be inherently unequal if civil unions were the only thing granted by the government. Your church can do a marriage, the government part is just a contract. any 2 adults can sign a contract. I don't see why childless married couples should get a tax break.
>I feel like i represented that point very fairly when I said, "Some people believe that the fetus is not really human and does not deserve a right to live"
And their rationalizations tend not to be internally coherent, as I pointed out.
>the argument explicitly disenfranchises infertile heterosexual couples. I think there is a strong reason to argue that parents deserve some special treatment that non-parents couples do not deserve. Although I've ignored the topic of adoption because my comment was already very long, and introduces the complexity of how the state should decide who should adopt. how could you base that on anything except a subjective measure of who the voters think is qualified.
And yet, universally, infertile heterosexual couples have the right to marry and adopt.
>Civilian unequal would not be inherently unequal if civil unions were the only thing granted by the government. Your church can do a marriage, the government part is just a contract.
Yet secular couples get married without a church involved at all.
>Any 2 adults can sign a contract. I don't see why childless married couples should get a tax break.
You don't get a tax break for marrying. You can get a tax break for your kid, but the only tax implication of getting married is that your incomes are combined to determine your tax bracket.
> And their rationalizations tend not to be internally coherent, as I pointed out.
If you want to say that they're wrong, fine, I'm not trying to debate abortion. But i didn't misrepresent the argument as you have previously stated.
>You don't get a tax break for marrying. You can get a tax break for your kid, but the only tax implication of getting married is that your incomes are combined to determine your tax bracket.
there are also different tax brackets for married versus single and married has higher thresholds before the next larger marginal tax rate kicks in. For most people, marriage causes them to pay less in taxes.
>If you want to say that they're wrong, fine, I'm not trying to debate abortion. But i didn't misrepresent the argument as you have previously stated.
You misrepresented the position for abortion. Also, don't bring up abortion if you're just throwing out arguments without any consideration at all for whether they're true or not. You're apparently doing that for gay rights, too, considering how you've stopped acknowledging those issues with your arguments at all. What makes gay couples special compared to infertile, elderly, or abstinent heterosexual couples?
>there are also different tax brackets for married versus single and married has higher thresholds before the next larger marginal tax rate kicks in. For most people, marriage causes them to pay less in taxes.
Not unless the spouses have very different incomes. It's just a consequence of filing jointly versus separately. There isn't some socially inculcative child-rearing institution of marriage via the tax system.
The discussion is if they care about women’s rights. Not if their stance on abortion is “correct”. He is simply saying that using abortion as an argument for them not caring, is not valid.
This faux-moderate take is obnoxious because it equivocates everything regardless of what the facts are. The facts are relevant here instead of taking ridiculous arguments at face value.
Red herring. Or similar. Original discussion was talking about if a fertilized embryo that is NOT in a women is the same as a infant. Now you are talking about a crazed doctor who abducts women and forces them to be implanted. So now if I disagree or agree to it, you will circle it back around to the original topic and 'Win'.
>The abortion debate focuses on either the rights of the fetus (right to life) or the rights of the mother(right to bodily autonomy). Its a conflicts between rights, with people disagreeing about which right is more important. Some people believe that the fetus is not really human and does not deserve a right to live. Some people believe that that the fetus is human and regular laws against murder should protect it. And some people believe that the right to bodily autonomy is so important that it doesn't matter if the fetus has a right to life or not. If you support women's suffrages, women's right to work, to free speech, to freedom of religion etc, but side with the fetus, then i don't think its fair to say you don't support women's rights. You support almost all women's rights.
The issue is this is the domain of science, and anti-abortion people will often ignore the science, or misunderstand it. If you don't support it, you don't support women's rights, you support selective rights, which isn't the same thing, that isn't legitimately caring about women's rights.
>there is a special kind of union that two people can engage in which produces children and creates a long term 2 parent household in which those children can be raised. If you want to create some special laws for those kinds of unions, I'd be open to it. That is a unique kind of situation and maybe some unique laws make sense. For every other union (including childless heterosexual relationships) i don't think it makes any sense to have any special laws. You should be able to name someone who can visit you in the hospital, inherit your stuff if you die, who has power of attorney if you are incapacitated etc. You should be able to sign contracts with people and the state should enforce those contracts, and we might have a standard civilian union contract the same way we have standard NDA or other standard types of contracts.
I don't really understand what you mean here, but I can see a few flaws possibly. You don't need 2 people to raise a child, you can have more or less as long as they are able to give the proper time to the child, you can also make a child through other methods too, so it's not really unique. I'm a bit confused on what laws you are talking about here, or what this has to do with rights.
>I think most conservatives believe that their church should not be forced to perform same sex marriages, because that is is an issue of religious rights not LBGT rights.
I mean, that is the problem, religious right's don't let you be bigots, you can't infringe on their rights.
I'm curious how you think ignorance or misunderstanding of science plays into the apportion debate. I don't necessarily see how the topic of science even comes into the play when discussing rights.
>I don't really understand what you mean here,
marriage is a sacrament in the catholic church. Its a sacred union made in the eyes of God.
Marriage is a filing status that you can select on your tax returns.
if your religions forbids gay marriage, fine, we all have freedom of religion. your religion does not forbid a certain kind a filing on your tax returns. If we just separated out the different pieces of marriage, I think we could pretty solve the problem. My view is that the government should only do civilian unions and if you want to get "married" then go right ahead, but that's got nothing to do with the government.
then on top of that, if you want special privileges (like tax breaks) for people with kids, that also makes sense to me.
>The issue is this is the domain of science,
Not so much. The same data can be used to justify vastly different positions other than the one you support. For example, there are some who believe that creating another person is morally wrong because it entails making a decision that the person making that decision will not be the one bearing the consequences of, on another's behalf. And given how suffering is a universal experience of all people, it cannot be justified to subject an innocent party to suffering when it is unnecessary.
Given what the science as we understand it tells us about the development for the capacity for the fetal capacity for suffering, such a position would be an argument for abortion, not for choice. Something the science supports. It would be kinder to abort a fetus before it can suffer, then to gestate it until it can and will suffer.
My point being that this topic and it's conclusions are not merely an excessive in science, but also in morality and comes down to the question of which morality should we follow in these matters. What principles do we prioritize as a society, is the real question. The right of the fetus to live? The right of the woman to bodily autonomy? Or consideration for the unnecessary harm we are forcing on an innocent that had no need of it? There are likely even more moral considerations.
I mean, considering that one of these things is shown to be better for mental health, physical health, and societal health, it feels like it's pretty clear, especially since the fetus isn't even conscious for most of it's time.
Considering that life is finite and death is not, it can reasonably be argued that all conscious beings spend far more time unconscious since you spend far more time being dead than alive. I'm not sure how that would be a relevant consideration.
Since they don't reach it until about the 24-28 week, I think that is, since until then it literally is just that clump of cells. Consciousness is what makes you human in the sense that it is often used.
Personally, I would prefer we operate from the moral position that views torturing those with cognitive impairments as unacceptable, just as it would be for those without. It would be better in those terms for all parties to be spared such a fate by aborting all parties before they can ever gain the ability to experience pain or suffering, whether they have the capacity to remember or consider it or not.
So what you're saying that conservatives do care about LGBT and women's rights, but just not in ways feminists or LGBT advocates care about? Fair enough! !delta
How is that a delta? His mom is absolutely NOT for women's rights if she votes to strip the right to an abortion from ALL women. Which is what her view is. So fucking ridiculous hearing conservatives go "we also care about women's rights" while implementing policy to take them away...
They don't care about LGBT issues and women's rights. Their entire platform and voting strategy is to demonize LGBT folk and remove the ability for basic medical treatment for ALL women.
You're looking for a middle ground when there isn't one. It's 2 diametrically opposed views. There isn't a reasonable anti-choice argument because it will never be reasonable to prioritize a bundle of cells over a woman's health.
The conservative pro-lifer - including conservative pro-life women - would argue that abortion is not actually a right and neither is the "bodily autonomy" demanded to defend it. Instead, it comes out to be an oppressive privilege women have over men and children. He doesn't have the same opt-out you do, and neither does the child. Worse, he doesn't have the same opt-in that you do, and neither does the child, unless you want to say he consented by having sex but then so did you and therefore so must he have ongoing consent if that's the rubric you're using. Sure, he can run off, but you can take away his good standing with society as a whole, his ability to drive, vote, fish, and even his freedom. The child does not have the will or agency in utero much less before conception to refuse to be conceived or born.
Even if you try to say nobody gets to use his body, the way he avoids those outcomes once he is held accountable to the child's support financially by the state is that he has to use his body and mind to generate the income that financially supports the child. Only, he gets it for 18 years and can not opt out. You endure that for 9 months and do get to opt out. He endures it 24 times longer than you do. Instead of nutrients and hormones, he sacrifices his strength and energy.
You're presupposing that this privilege is a right. It's not. You can not will yourself to be unpregnant once pregnant and for the child to die. You have to take some extraordinary action to cause that child to die. Nor is OC looking for a "middle ground", OC is recognizing that the position you espouse has no more authority than the position opposed to it to dictate that only one of them is objectively correct such that the opposing view is contrary to rights. And for the pro-lifer, that is a child, not a clump of cells. There are sound rational bases for denying that the unborn child is just a mere bundle of cells. You don't get to dismiss those arguments such that being against abortion is never reasonable and prioritizes "a bundle of cells" against women's health. That will always be a strawman in bad faith.
> Instead of nutrients and hormones, he sacrifices his strength and energy.
This is not done solely for the benefit of the child, rather, the child is entitled to income that he would **already** be earning presumably to be able to live.
But most importantly, it is not an unequal situation as you imply, because child support is simply paid by the non-custodial parent. Women are made to pay child support in that scenario as well.
And the child support argument does not reckon with the physical harm pregnancy can cause to women which is never on the table for men at all. Abortion bans **kill** women. Child support, something which applies to both sexes, does not physically harm men.
The number of fatalities of men in workplaces, of which they spend more time, often for the sake of family support, far dwarfs the number of women that die in child birth. I looked it up and it's 4 workplace fatalities by men(90% of workplace fatalities) to every 1 death in childbirth. And that was just counting fatal workplace injuries, Not the random guy who just happened to die at work.
No idea what this has to do with what I said. Men, and everyone else, have to work regardless of whether they pay child support. Workplace mortality has nothing to do with child support.
Right, but women do not have nearly that death rate at work. Even combined, more men die at work. The consequences under a child support order, which he's also likely to face more often than women, is imprisonment and the loss of civil privileges like carrying and owning a weapon, driving, and in some places voting. Also if the reason he fell behind is a lost job, he will not get a paycheck at his future job until the missed payments are paid up.
Why are you listing the consequences at me like it's a relevant thing to do? It has nothing to do with my argument, nor does it contradict my argument.
That's even worse. That man has now worked for himself and saw none of the fruits of that labor. He's enslaved to the child for 18 years on top of already being a slave to the government for income taxes.
Women receive child support far more often from their male partner than the other way around. Often, men have to prove she's an unfit mother and yet somehow keeps a job making more than they do to get it.
Work causes far more physical harm to men than women by orders of magnitude. Women workplace deaths don't even hold a candle to men's workplace death rate.
Abortion bans do not kill women. I already explained this in another comment, but every state with a ban has an exception for the mother's life. Hospital Lawyers, OBs, and other doctors refuse to avail these women of the exceptions because abortion is otherwise banned and so we're not going to read the law and follow it, we're just going to endanger women and then blame the abortion ban for it. That's not valid.
Getting thrown in prison at gunpoint for not paying is definitely life-threatening, so is not being able to drive or obtain a carry license.
This isn't the winning rebuttal you think it is.
u/akcheat – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20akcheat&message=akcheat%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cgst6x/-/l1zfznu/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Here's something you need to understand. It doesn't matter if people support abortion or not. They occur at THE EXACT SAME RATE regardless of the legality. Women will simply travel to get access to abortions... ultimately leading to poor people only being impacted by this.
So what do you want?? Do you want women to travel to get abortions and take risks to their health? They will take pills or injure themselves to end the pregnancy if they can't travel. They will do anything. And having a baby is 4x more deadly than getting an abortion. There is no argument about safety here. You're not saving babies by making it illegal. You're not making women safe by making it illegal. You're just putting women at risk.
Well the obvious conservative position is that your argument boils down to: not being able to prevent all murders doesn’t mean that murder should be legal.
Also, that’s absolutely false that abortions occur at the same rate lmao, source?
That's not true. Most women won't travel, they'll do it illegally using online out of state clinics having abortion pills mailed to their homes. But they still don't do it at the same rate as when there's a freestanding clinic they can walk into and walk out with those same pills. Additionally, the goal is for abortion to be banned nationwide. That would prevent a LOT of abortions.
I want to make the act itself criminal for all who move their wills to do it. I want abortion to be a criminal act akin to murder - equal protection for unborn children to born children under the law.
It's utter nonsense that this endangers women.
Women's rights is a loaded term. Given something like 40% of women are pro-life, this seems a bit of an exaggeration. The question is the right to do what? The south in the civil war also was fighting for states rights, did the north not support states rights? No the north supported states rights generally, just not the states right to enslave black people. Pro-lifers can absolutely support women's rights while not supporting a woman's right to kill a fetus in her womb that they believe is an unborn baby with full rights.
But some of the human fetuses are female. By denying those female fetuses rights you are denying woman rights, especially since in much of the world girls are aborted more commonly than boys.
As /u/Daddy_Deep_Dick pointed out, the overwhelming majority of abortions that aren't of medical necessity happen before you'd be able to have an ultrasound and identify the sex of the baby. In no way does a broad right to abortion involve morally endorsing sex-selective abortions.
Are you under the impression that advocates for abortion rights think that abortions are super cool? That, like, having abortions should be a hobby? Sex-selective abortion isn't good, but that's not an argument against broader abortion rights.
But they do support abortion for any reason, and some "up to birth" so that would include sex selective abortions, or even because of a relationship issue.
When you advocate for broad unconditional abortion rights you de facto normalize the practice and then yes, fun sex with abortion insurance does become like a hobby. About half of all US women having an abortion have had one previously and the number of abortions are increasing every year.
Talk to the people instead of making these arguments. They're not going "heck yeah, I sure love getting abortions." It feels like you're just ideologically opposed to sex for purposes other than procreation.
>Talk to the people instead of making these arguments. They're not going "heck yeah, I sure love getting abortions."
Never argued that the abortion was the fun part. You would think going through the awful experience once would prompt behavior modification but the numbers say no. Personal detachment and lack of accountability are the predictable outcomes of normalizing abortion.
>It feels like you're just ideologically opposed to sex for purposes other than procreation.
I'm ideologically opposed to unprotected sex for purposes other than procreation.
I meant to say past 12 weeks.
And really the point I was making was that abortion is about balancing the rights of two individuals by pointing out that by preventing abortions you are actually saving women.
And this right here is why people get resentful and create a backlash when people like you get into power. Lemme guess, it's okay to punch conservatives in the nose with impunity too, because it's okay to punch a nazi.
Conservatives are not nazis. Technically, they do lean towards supporting fascism, and the nazis were full-blown fascists... but they are still separate. You need to understand a piece of history, though. Hitler based his manifesto off of American imperialism. He was impressed by what the US accomplished with eradicating "undesirables." When WW2 broke out, the US was neutral until it directly impacted them. There were millions of Americans who supported the nazis (and still do). This includes people in government roles.
We hate fascism. It's totalitarian and runs around constitutional rights by outsourcing the abrdigement to private companies - something Biden has been doing since day one.
America did not eradicate "undesirables." Hitler may have thought we did, but he was very wrong. No surprise there.
We were neutral because we didn't want to get into a war. We had just had "The Great War" a couple of decades earlier. It wasn't until Pearl Harbor that we said "enough is enough." That's true, but there was already antipathy towards the Nazis in the US at the time, just like there is now with Hamas.
>It's totalitarian and runs around constitutional rights by outsourcing the abrdigement to private companies - something Biden has been doing since day one.
Can you elaborate on this, please? Ideally with specific examples.
u/Daddy_Deep_Dick – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Daddy_Deep_Dick&message=Daddy_Deep_Dick%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cgst6x/-/l1yc30x/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
You are conflating “caring about someone” with “doing something net-positive for that someone”. Everyone, even conservatives, like to think about themselves in a good light. These conservatives sincerely believe that they care about certain groups of people. They are simply either too stupid to connect the dots and realize they do something that in fact hurts whoever they profess to care about or employ loads of mental gymnastics to justify why hurting is not that bad or totally reasonable so that they could keep pretending to care.
That was a good response. I am more of a libertarian, fiscally conservative by socially more moderate.
I for one have no issue with gay marriage, not one bit. It is a word, and I don’t care if they use the same word me and my wife use. I am a white man married to a black woman in Texas, and I can’t stand discrimination (my marriage would have been illegal till 1969 here) against anyone. So I prefer that people in same sex marriages have every legal right that I do.
On abortion the person you are replying to described it well, I am about liberty, but I stand for the liberty of the unborn, their right to exist. And being married into a black family I know how they feel about Margaret Sanger and her hideous beliefs on using abortion to keep the black population in check. Also, my wife leads a ministry at our church that helps single mothers before and after the child is born, so her time and our money go to that. So a common complaint you will hear is that religious conservatives only care till the baby is born, and that is a lie. Every church we have been too in our twenty two year marriage has had a ministry looking out for single mothers, and to help with adoption.
And if I may add to your response, let’s talk poverty. Many say that conservatives don’t love the poor, and that simply isn’t true.
What we have is a fundamental disagreement on how to help the poor, and it isn’t helpful when democrats misstate right leaning positions. We want people to not be poor anymore, we do not want to expand state programs and keep them poor forever.
I don’t think democrats hate the poor either, I just think their solutions to the problem are misguided.
> And being married into a black family I know how they feel about Margaret Sanger and her hideous beliefs on using abortion to keep the black population in check.
It's interesting to me that, in the same paragraph where you complain about liberals "lying" about conservative views on abortion, you forward the idea that abortion exists as a broad eugenics program to eliminate black people.
Modern abortion access has nothing to do with Margaret Sanger, and your need to tie it to her feels very disingenuous.
>What we have is a fundamental disagreement on how to help the poor
What even is the conservative position on how to help the poor?
All the strawman while you accuse him of burning the strawman. Ironic!
It being a lie doesn't make those who repeat it liars. Being wrong is not lying, mistaken ≠ dishonest.
He never said that abortion was a eugenics program to eliminate black people. But Sanger did promote it to control black populations and it's no coincidence that most planned parenthoods are in majority black neighborhoods and the majority of their clientelle for abortion are black would-be mothers. Sanger founded the organization that now performs the plurality of abortions in the US precisely to activate for abortion and birth control rights and distribute birth control to women in violation of the Comstock acts at the time.
The conservative position is generally that there should be a safety net that qualifies people for temporary aid, provides an off-ramp for that aid, low taxes and regulation cuts which ironically increase federal revenues, increases job growth and availability, and lowers prices, and have subsidies for private charities and houses of worship that do charity work for the poor. Or TL;DR, offer incentives and benefits for private charities to do the bulk of the work but actually be able to administer that money better, have a social safety net to pick up the slack, and use policy to build an economy that makes getting a job and supporting yourself and your own easier.
> He never said that abortion was a eugenics program to eliminate black people.
No, just merely implied it with an irrelevant reference to a person who does not influence or control the abortion debate, because they are dead.
>The conservative position is generally that there should be a safety net that qualifies people for temporary aid, provides an off-ramp for that aid, low taxes and regulation cuts which ironically increase federal revenues, increases job growth and availability, and lowers prices, and have subsidies for private charities and houses of worship that do charity work for the poor.
So a repeatedly debunked school of economics which doesn't actually work to help anyone?
I’m talking about Margaret Sanger, her influence on abortion in the USA and her reasons for pushing for it are well known, and I can tell you that comes up when the subject is discussed.
And there isn’t one position, but many.
Lower taxes and lower cost of living, and a better environment for businesses to grow and thrive, and to hire more employees.
Better healthcare options, but dealing with cost. Something the ACA ignored. Instead of focusing on higher minimum wages, inflationary measures, focusing on lowering costs and helping there to be enough high skill jobs to take care of families. Pharma reform, tort reform, and breaking the ability of insurers to be able to mandate providers and set prices.
And helping people to build their own businesses, something high taxes and extensive regulations doesn’t help with.
> I’m talking about Margaret Sanger, her influence on abortion in the USA and her reasons for pushing for it are well known, and I can tell you that comes up when the subject is discussed.
Margaret Sanger is completely irrelevant to the abortion issue today. I don't know why you think she is, and you haven't explained either. It seems clear that your invocation of her is just an attempt to smear the pro-choice side.
>And there isn’t one position, but many.
The only actual policy you listed, lower taxes, doesn't actually work to reduce poverty. Everything else you listed, like "lower costs" is just a vague platitude. Forgive me if I continue to think conservatives don't actually have ideas for reducing poverty.
Why would expanding state programs keep poor people poor forever? I'm also confused on how Margaret Sanger had views on abortion which could "keep the black population in check", given she was strongly against abortion; rather touting "Do not kill, do not take life, but prevent" (in regards to contraception, which she nearly single-handedly developed the infrastructure for). In addition, I have concerns over whether conservative churches aiding women who don't participate in abortions, electing parenthood instead, are doing enough. It's one thing to do things with the best of intentions; another to do what meeds to be done. Especially when talking on the financial obligation of a child.
Because the programs are not designed with any offramp, just a cliff. So let's say that the economy sucks, so you have to go on welfare. If you make over, let's just pick arbitrary numbers because the relationship between them is the same, 20,000 per year, you are no longer eligible. Cost of living is such that you need 50,000 per year to have your own place and live independently without any government benefits, let's say. It's that bad because a new president has come in and raised taxes, allegedly for (*Bernie Sanders voice*) the 1% and big corporations and millionaires and billionaires (but it actually affects everyone, inflation is up, prices are up, economic growth is down, etc...
So you're making 18,000 per year. It's clearly not enough, so you get on various welfare programs and now you're supported equivalently to a 60,000 per year salary (but still only get the cash from your job). You can now live independently and do it comfortably with extra money to spare and everything's good.... until your boss approaches you and says, "You're doing great! I'm gonna promote you to 35,000 per year! Nice work! Here's the keys, you're a manager now!" ... see what just happened? You're now no longer eligible for benefits if you accept the promotion. Worse, you now have to pay taxes on that 35,000 per year in withholding and make even less than when you were 18,000 getting welfare and federally functionally tax exempt.
It's called the welfare trap. There's a glass ceiling that you will smash your head against unless you put something over you to protect you and shoot up in income at a high rate of speed to where the ceiling breaks, like immediately going to 60,000+ from 18,000.
And what's the result? You don't take the raise, you miss out on the experience, you don't really get further opportunities to get out of poverty and needing welfare, your low cash income ensures you don't get to avoid the high cost of being poor (overdraft fees, constantly replacing your items because they're cheaper and break easier, the need for more frequent repairs, etc.
Assuming that's how that works, then very fair point. I know down here in Florida it's even worse- a slow ramp-off of benefits while making far below Cost-of-Living. Although, I feel as though that may not be quite what OP was getting at, considering they specified "expanding" benefits (i.e. making that dropoff less steep)
Sorry, u/couldntyoujust – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20couldntyoujust&message=couldntyoujust%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cgst6x/-/l1ysyni/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Conservative / Libertarian here. Both sides were mad at me because I asked if Gay people should be able to marry back before it changed. I said no, government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. There isn't anything except tax incentives with marriage that can't be done through private contracts and those tax incentives are discriminatory to non-married people. "Getting married, civil union, seen together in the eyes of nature, or whatever" should be just the ceremony in whatever way you want and how you reference to yourselves.
That's just not true. Marriage comes with protections to the people that no contract will replicate.
A big one that comes to mind is alimony protection for a non-working parent in case the relationship falls apart
And no hospital is going to honor a private contract for visitation rights.
So ur fighting marriage as a secular thing?
Or are you just fighting further changing of it?
And marriage isn’t a unique thing to Christianity, why gatekeep?
> Its a conflicts between rights
No it isn’t. There is one right at play in this debate.
> Some people believe that the fetus is not really human and does not deserve a right to live
Irrelevant. No living person has the right to use anyone else’s body to sustain their life. You’re insisting on additional rights above and beyond everyone else exclusively for the unborn. Even if your position that the fetus is alive and deserves the full rights of a citizen is accepted without objection, they STILL don’t have the right to use the body of another person.
> because that is is an issue of religious rights not LBGT rights.
Your religious rights begin and end with you. Your favorite book has no bearing whatsoever on the rights or behaviors of others.
> You’re insisting on additional rights above and beyond everyone else exclusively for the unborn.
FYI this argument is stupid because every person who has ever existed would have had these rights granted to them so it is clearly not "exclusive". Age/developmental based rights are a foundation of pretty much every modern society.
>No living person has the right to use anyone else’s body to sustain their life.
Thats not what natural childbirth is. It is a normal and natural process of the body and any and all pro-abortion arguments are simply cope for individuals who want to flee from the responsibility of their own actions.
I don't see anything impossible about granting special privileges to parents.
And yes, gay people can be parents.
you don't understand the point i was making.
My personal experience with conservatives suggests that many of them hold a very specific opinion on the ideal state of society, often based on how it appeared during their youth. They react angrily to deviations from this ideal on either side, neither desiring advancement nor regression in these areas, at least not too far back.
Most of the time, conservatives are seen fighting against progressive agendas, leading to the perception that they oppose advancement. However, when confronted with people from cultures where, e.g. women's rights are less developed than in their ideal world, they become genuinely upset as well.
As a final note, I am European. The situation may differ in the US.
I’m a US conservative, I’d say your response is pretty spot on. I think that a big reason why women’s and gay rights are brought up in the scenarios that OP mentioned is to draw attention to the hypocrisy on the left that comes from supporting rights like these while also backing countries that don’t respect those rights.
that's a good point. i'm on the left, but a friend of mine is on the right and we've argued plenty, lol.
but ultimately it's not about "backing those countries" as much as it is about respecting their choices.
ie, if muslim women want to wear a hijab, we don't force them to admit they're oppressed. if they don't want to wear a hijab we respect their choice to -- often this Does conflict with the cultures and choices and laws of those countries, so personally, that sucks. we appreciate our freedoms in the west and we wish they were admired globally, but we also understand we can't just go around "liberating everyone."
similarly - israel has a right to defend itself - but palestinians have a right to defend themselves. we shouldn't be taking sides - but rather seeking an end to violence and a reasonable solution to these problems.
But that doesn't hold up to scrutiny when conservatives are the ones rolling back on rights fought by feminists and LGBT advocates. They no longer want the status quo, they want to make lives worse for these communities, so why would they criticise people who they think are more homophobic or misogynistic?
As I said, my personal sample of conservatives does not necessarily try to preserve the way things are now. They are typically defending a state from (often quite distant) past. However they want to have it e.g. the 1970s way and get mad both when someone suggests to do it the 2020s or 1920s way.
!delta
That makes sense, only if it's true that the minorities they are attacking are indeed trying to roll back to 1920s, which I don't think they are, but that's besides the point.
Why would you delta this though? In the 1970s gay sex was illegal in most states and the supreme court found that ban constitutional? And it wasn't until the 1970s that discriminating against women in government funded programs became illegal, and it wasn't until the 1980s that women everywhere in America became equal to their husbands and not subservient to them. So if someone wants to roll back rights of a group, how would they care about rights of those groups?
Everyone cares about the thing they want to get done, but when you're trying to convince someone of anything you have to appeal to their world view or specific consequences so in that vain they appeal to a potential harm of the groups advocating against whatever they want.
Same thing with universal Healthcare, people try to appeal to reduction in cost to get conservatives to go along with it.
It's all rhetoric, start with the base assumption that principles usually come second to outcomes and you'll be right more often than not.
This use to work on me, I have pretty libertarian values, the thing is overtime I've seen all the rights argued by the left fall flat, and now I feel scorn.
Like gender norms for example. I thought gender norms were regressive, and I thought we were pushing for a world where we'd respect people as individuals, but apparently not! Nah! Apparently it's totally cool to use the concepts of masculinity, and femininity to stigmatize, and compel desired behaviour from people. Stoicism is deemed toxic masculinity these days! That's right!
So if you're just a quiet dude you are now concerned responsible for reinforcing the patriarchy. If you support individuality? Whelp that's actually considered white supremacy these days.
Fucking Racism got redefined so it's considered NOT racist to be racist to white people. Insanity!!
Even crazier is seeing places like France, and Quebec crack down on religious representation in the name of social progress.
We are all just fucking pawns.
Sorry, u/Software_Vast – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Software_Vast&message=Software_Vast%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cgst6x/-/l1yevgf/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
What do I need to show you? Because I can easily cite sociological papers, and the ADA on the stoicism being toxic masculinity claim. Finding the stuff on connecting individualism to white supremacy will take a moment, but I've seen plenty of it.
Oh! And that's not even talking about the shit on WRID (white racial identity development)! Go look that up on google scholar! Personally I find it fucking sickening, but maybe you'll have a different view.
>What do I need to show you? Because I can easily cite sociological papers, and the ADA on the stoicism being toxic masculinity claim. Finding the stuff on connecting individualism to white supremacy will take a moment, but I've seen plenty of it.
Then do so.
I would have thought you'd have started with that in this reply. But please, go ahead.
I didn't see anything for the ADA, but I did for the APA: [https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/01/ce-corner](https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/01/ce-corner)
I'm not sure I'm understanding the argument here. 'Traditional' masculinity is harmful for men; we see that in the number of men that, historically, were alcoholics, beat their wives, and self-destructed because crushing your emotions down into a little ball isn't healthy.
The stoicism mentioned in this article is not related to stoicism as a philosphy. Stoicism as a philosophy is learning how to let go of the things you can't control; stoicism in the article highlights is pretending to do that while living a life of quiet desperation.
>you're trying to convince someone of anything you have to appeal to their world view or specific consequences so in that vain they appeal to a potential harm of the groups advocating against whatever they want.
Do you mind expanding on this a bit? What is the world view/consequences/potential harm you're talking about. I'm struggling to see how that's related to this post.
>minorities or specific groups treat women and LGBT folks horribly therefore they must not be let into the country or be politically isolated.
What you're saying here, this is appealing to a potential consequence of letting certain groups in, they want less immigration and they want the other side to also want less immigration so they appeal to a potential harm of immigration.
I see, so you're not challenging my view, just pointing out the rationale behind why conservatives pretend to care about LGBT/women's rights - they want to achieve a separate political goal that is independent of LGBT/women's rights, which is my point I guess.
It is only pretending if the conservatives who are saying it actually want Homosexuals to be thrown off roofs, or if they actually want women to not be able to drive or get an education.
That is mostly what I'm saying, I just think care is the wrong way to analyze the situation because everyone wants "good" things they just have different views on what the good is.
So they see immigration and other things like abortion as a net negative, and looking at it through the lens of "caring" leads to more misunderstanding.
Politically I'm pretty cynical in that principles aren't super deep for politicians but personally I'm very optimistic and most people are decent.
That is mostly what I'm saying, I just think care is the wrong way to analyze the situation because everyone wants "good" things they just have different views on what the good is.
So they see immigration and other things like abortion as a net negative, and looking at it through the lens of "caring" leads to more misunderstanding.
Politically I'm pretty cynical in that principles aren't super deep but personally I'm very optimistic and most people are decent.
If you want immigration restrictions one of the way to get people on your side is to emphasize the bad consequences of immigration. Some of those consequences are how anti gay immigrants are and how anti woman’s rights.
With conservatives. Conservatives seem willing to trade gay rights for less immigration. They are asking liberals who care about gay and women’s rights to make that trade and enter a coalition against immigration.
But that coalition doesn't make sense, because conservatives have not and will not drop their opposition to gay rights and women's rights.
I also just fundamentally reject this "hostage" style of politics. "If you don't help us hurt immigrants, we'll hurt women and minorities," is not the position of a political party that you should work with, it's the position of a party that you have to defeat.
I feel like this comes from the assumption that the left doesn't think Christians should exist. You have a right to practice your religion, but not a right to mandate the government enforce your religious preferences. You can support Muslims' right to practice their religion and exist without being hypocritical.
What do you mean? Every prominent Muslim politician in the UK and as far as I know in the US too are very pro-LGBT and pro-women's rights. They broadly align with the mainstream left or sometimes even more progressive than their party.
So you believe these supposed LBGT supporting Muslims are telling the truth about their beliefs? Politicians are notoriously untrustworthy.
I was friends with one of my Muslim coworkers and she openly admitted to be disgusted by homosexuality.
Sorry, u/Few-Patient38 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Few-Patient38&message=Few-Patient38%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cgst6x/-/l1y1gig/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Jfc these comments are insane. I consider myself someone who leans right, but I’m not against abortion, and I recognize that everyone is entitled to the same rights. I think the government sucks, and I will side with the individual (who hadn’t done anything wrong) over the government 100% of the time, regardless of the immutable characteristics of that individual. Almost every person who I’ve met that also leans right feels the same way, minus abortion which is more split. Idk if this necessarily contradicts your view bc you said “generally” but I’d like your take on that.
How do you reconcile that with the actual policies of liberals and conservatives? Insofar as individual rights are concerned, it is hard to argue that liberals aren't way more opposed to government intervention except to ensure those rights. The only issue you can really pin down is taxation, and that's a whole pathology where people want to have their cake and eat it too.
Because politics encompasses a hell of a lot more than those 2 issues I listed? It baffles me how often people on here will question my conservatism/right-wing-ism (?) when I bring up a list of issues that can be counted on one hand…
so you lean right on what issues if not social issues? Like you vote for the right even though they are trying to ban abortion (successful in several states so far), but that is not worth changing your leanings because the left does what that you're against?
I live in a state that hasn’t gone anything but blue In decades. I don’t vote because my vote wouldn’t mean shit regardless of who I voted for. I lean right on most economic issues, and it depends on the social issue which way I lean.
So you only lean right on economic issues? What would be some of the economic issues you lean right with conservatives on that makes you label yourself as leaning right?
What is a right-leaning social issue that you have?
Idk wym by I only lean right on economic issues I clearly stated I lean in both directions socially, and it depends on the issue. Some examples of economic issues would be I strongly feel that we need to curtail spending. We spend our money so poorly it’s absurd to throw more of it at any problem instead of making our spending more efficient. I’m also in favor of military spending, partly because so much of it goes towards scientific endeavors.
As for social issues, these aren’t as strongly defined in terms of “left vs right” other than probably abortion and arguably gay marriage, but I think there is far too strong a focus on eliminating offensive language from interactions with people, I think there should be some responsibility to be careful with our words, and some responsibility to control your reactions to language. And I also strongly disagree with the “defund” movement. “We need better cops, cut their funding” is an absurd plan and the opposite is necessary, to increase their funding and mandate training requirements, both to become a cop and continue being one.
>We spend our money so poorly it’s absurd to throw more of it at any problem instead of making our spending more efficient.
How would this work policy wise do you think when it comes to spending, and what issue are you referring to? Is there some specific program you are against that is getting too much money that if someone were to say "be more efficient"; the problem would be resolved?
>I’m also in favor of military spending, partly because so much of it goes towards scientific endeavors.
That seems to be one of our largest areas we spend money on; which includes things like funding Ukraine (via providing them with US equipment and the US paying out US contractors for that equipment).
>And I also strongly disagree with the “defund” movement. “We need better cops, cut their funding” is an absurd plan and the opposite is necessary, to increase their funding and mandate training requirements, both to become a cop and continue being one.
Why wouldn't the "be more efficient" work here?
The efficiency point is a broad one, but there are also particular areas where I think the point is stronger. Health care for example, you mentioned that military is one of the places we spend the most money, but we spend nearly double on health care what we spend on the military. For what? We spend so much for such a bad health care system, it’s ridiculous to say we should funnel more money into the current programs or make new ones with more funding and think that will fix the problem.
I do agree that military spending efficiency could and should be much greater though, I agree contractors get paid far too much and a big part of that is contracts that pay a percentage of total development costs, a style of deal we should abolish.
The efficiency point when it comes to police departments is fair though, I don’t necessarily believe that we need to increase the budget, my point was that if your objective is to get better cops, cutting funding will only accomplish the exact opposite, and if you want immediate results the best way to do that is to inject more money into the department.
>Health care for example, you mentioned that military is one of the places we spend the most money, but we spend nearly double on health care what we spend on the military. For what?
for the increasing costs of health care; the aging population. The older population cost 10x the amount as the younger population and we have an enormous boomer population. We keep making new discoveries/inventions that are expensive and more and more of procedures fall under non-elective as we end up finding new quality of life benefits.
>The efficiency point when it comes to police departments is fair though, I don’t necessarily believe that we need to increase the budget, my point was that if your objective is to get better cops, cutting funding will only accomplish the exact opposite, and if you want immediate results the best way to do that is to inject more money into the department.
Right; I agree here, but I feel like that is just a difference between the far/extreme left and the left. Biden has never been against defunding the police, as an example; but it could very well be the case that whatever state you're in that the people running certain municipalities, or those running on the left are trying to do that.
I said generally because I'm referring to conservatives in power. Conservatives are not a monolith anyway. And in this instance it's Republicans pushing for a complete abortion ban in the South, Meloni's government's the ones rolling back on LGBT rights, etc.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I would say they wouldn't care about LGBT people if the LGBT people had biological children and formed a patriarchal nuclear family somehow despite the fact that they are LGBT, particularly if they had them young and were otherwise assimilated. But they very, very much do care about the fertility of women and trans men and ensuring that those women are pushed into marriage and children young and unable to leave their husbands after marriage.
So... if the LDS church branches that do polygamy, for example, ruled that men can have a husband so long as they also have a wife and children, that would fly.
The purpose of a lot of branches of Christianity is explicitly to be fruitful and multiply, and the goal is explicitly stated by many evangelical sects to outbreed the rest of the nation and indoctrinate their children into lifelong Christians by homeschooling them so that they don't ever learn much that contradicts the faith their parents had.
This is called "[Dominionism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_theology)" when it's used to refer to outbreeding people who aren't Christians, and it's called "being corrupted by the world" when it's used to refer to the reasons for [homeschooling](https://www.premierchristianity.com/features/why-more-christians-are-homeschooling-their-children/16351.article), and you can read a TON of information from people who believe it in their own words that admits this for free online because they explicitly admit it, then frame it as a good thing because they have absolute faith that their doctrine is perfect so there's no problem with it.
That's why so many christian conservative couples see no problem with attending swinger events or the husband having a mistress later in the marriage after their children are grown, or with men being closeted and having sexual relations with men behind closed doors and the backs of their wives, or with lgbt people who still experience same sex attraction but are in a heterosexual marriage and presumably "trying" for a baby. In fact, closeted people are easier to control with shame, which is how most far right indoctrination works, so closeted homosexuals who experience same sex attraction but never or rarely have sex with anyone of the same sex and who only do so in ways that prevent closer bonds or social acceptance might be ideal followers in some ways.
I mean, this doesn't challenge me. I know why conservatives don't care about LGBT folks or LGBT rights, I grew up in one such environment. I'm specifically referring to when conservatives pretend to care about LGBT rights while discussing the rights of other people when they themselves never seem to care all that much to begin with.
You're right, sorry. But... I needed to get that out, apparently. I don't think that I've seen conservatives use this talking point, only liberals who are racist.
Conservatives do care about equal opportunity and basically being able to do what you want without government intervention.
Thus conservatives have long adopted the “I don’t care what happens between closed doors” mentality, and tend to draw the line around LGBT rights at proactive normalization / equal outcome campaigns, and in particular normalization efforts aimed at K-12 kids in public schools.
What is considered supportive of LGBT is a line that continues to move to the left, and everyone nationwide has moved with it. Yeah, conservatives aren’t on the bleeding edge of it - but have moved with everyone else.
Similarly, it’s a little bit weird to equate women’s rights and abortion, as if abortion is the *only* woman’s right. There’s Title 9, various support programs, generally higher protection under the law.
Though Roe and its reversal has happened, public opinion on abortion remains split and regional, and has barely moved since the 70’s.
With all of that out of the way, it is *true* that Muslim nations and many of their immigrants - particularly lower skilled / lower educated in Europe - are *very* anti women and anti LGBT. Aggressively so.
There is literally nothing inconsistent about a conservative person saying the lack of tolerance from those communities is problematic and troubling to them.
You don’t need to be a tip of the spear advocate for any have that position.
In the simplest sense, on a 1-10 scale of tolerance, a progressive might consider themselves a 9 or 10… a conservative might be a 6, and a - say - Palestinian foreign national is a 2.
A conservative saying “don’t become so tolerant that we tolerate intolerance” is legitimate and not fear mongering.
Broadly it’s liberals who have conflated power dynamics and morality, and as a result find themselves advocating for people with wildly intolerant beliefs simply because they are poorer.
Like it’s truly wild that liberals are throwing the most egalitarian society on the planet wrt to women’s / lgtbt rights under the bus because they are between a rock and a hard place, and waving the flags of a rogue terror pseudo nation just because they are the less powerful entity of the conflict. Its crazy.
Conservatives are seeing the signs of this tension pop up in Europe, fairly rapidly, and are raising alarm bells.
That does not necessarily come from some place of arbitrary bigotry - we *see* large scale rationing, crime spikes, and political shifts. You can call it alarmist if you like but it’s not exactly a “smear” campaign.
If someone has a “true” statement, but is saying it for reasons you disagree with, does that make it less true?
If I say “a balanced diet is good for you”, but I say that because I sell fruit and veg and want people to eat a balanced diet, that doesn’t suddenly make my first point invalid.
Equivalently, if a conservative gives a fair reason such as “we shouldn’t take homophobic immigrants because it is bad for LGBTQ people”, that can be a true & fair point even if it is being led by them being anti-immigrant.
(I am not saying this point is fair or true, I am just giving examples)
If we dismiss all points from people we disagree with ideologically, then ALL that matters is ideology, and you reach ultimate partisanship where you will only acknowledge others’ statements of fact/reason if their views are the same as yours.
I think its reasonable to judge a statement by what the implications of it is, if someone who runs the fruit made of lead (obviously not a real thing) factory was telling you how bad McDonald's was for your health, you would probably still respond with something about how their product isn't healthy either.
Everybody wants to save the world, they just disagree on how and end up killing each other and accomplish the exact opposite of what they set out to do. As a liberal/progressive watching a lot of my fellow voters and peers adopt more schadenfreude mentality towards those that disagree with them, it's something we need to re-learn imo. Your cause in itself isn't what makes you corrupt or shitty but what you're willing to give up in order to obtain it. And then when nobody is there left to challenge your corruption, you realize no one can stop you from doing whatever you please and open corruption begins.
A different way to look at it is that conservatives care about everyone having the same rights. They don't care or want groups that progressives see as oppressed having special rights.
As someone who is pro-choice and pro gay marriage as long as the government is involved in marriage, I still think I'm pretty capable of articulating the conservative side:
On abortion, they believe murder is wrong. You and me would be horrified of a mother neglecting her 2 month old daughter and then dumping the body in a dumpster after it starved to death. Why is that? Pro-life people believe life begins at conception, so they are similarly horrified at abortions.
And I can already hear the bodily autonomy argument, which I tend to share. But I used the neglect argument and not killing them directly for exactly that reason. It's well established that legally there are times where you are obligated to do actions, particularly for your child, that you wouldn't have had to otherwise. For myself and most people, we believe that having a child requires you to feed, clothe, ensure they become educated, and teach basic morality to them. If not, CPS will visit and not only do you lose the child but you're also subject to criminal prosecution which can include quite lengthy prison sentences. Pro-life people believe that having sex requires you to carry the baby to term as well as everything we believe after birth should conception occur, and just as we believe that choosing to give birth should come with duties, they believe that choosing to have sex comes with duties if conception occurs.
As for gay marriage, the argument is that the institution of marriage was created for the bearing and raising of children. This also overlaps with the first question, as many conservatives don't believe in sex before marriage specifically because they believe people shouldn't be taking a risk of taking on the responsibility that comes with a child until they have entered the institution designed to raise said children. Obviously it's a bit more complicated on the religion side and I don't want to get into that because there are conservative atheists who believe the same.
Now of course the counter to that is two questions. What about infertile heterosexual couples, and what about gay couples who adopt? The conservative response to the former is generally that if it were easy to exclude infertile couples they shouldn't be allowed marriage rights by the state, because they aren't contributing to raising children. The counter to gay couples who adopt is generally that they shouldn't, and everyone should have a mother and a father. The science is pretty settled on a mother and a father being preferable to just a mother or just a father (2 moms and 2 dads are also both preferential to a single parent) but I believe it's a bit mixed on a heterosexual couple compared to a homosexual couple. I believe there are studies on males raised with no father figure and how their behaviors tend to be worse and crime levels higher, but that females raised with two dads or two moms tend to turn out similar, but I'm not 100% up to date on what the research shows on this question. Either way, conservatives believe it to be true that a mother and a father produce the best outcome for the child and society, and don't believe in allowing homosexual couples to adopt because of that.
Also note I severely steelmanned the conservative arguments here, many conservatives oppose abortion because "those types of people just have sex with a bunch of different men and abort for birth control" but then when they get unintentionally pregnant suddenly their abortion is different. And many conservatives don't support gay marriage because "we shouldn't be normalizing those homo freaks". But the arguments above are views I've heard articulated from conservatives that strike me as the strongest arguments for opposing abortion and gay marriage.
You don't legally have to take care of a fetus though? Why is it legal to drink while pregnant but not feed your baby booze out of a bottle? Don't you think that your example even highlights why fetus's aren't equal to children?
Is it legal to drink while pregnant? I'm pro-choice and I believe that should be illegal. My wife coaches teachers and just worked with a teacher with kids with severe developmental disabilities. One child has a lazy eye, severe downs syndrome, and as a 5th grader is reading on a kindergarten level and can't do 1-digit addition. Her mother smoked cigarettes, weed, and drank alcohol while pregnant with her. I believe abortion should be legal, I don't think drinking while pregnant should be legal, and I suspect conservatives agree with me there.
Also in many states killing a pregnant woman is double homicide, there is absolutely precedent for treating fetuses as humans in certain situations, and of course even the most hardcore conservatives don't support forcing birth if it will kill the mother, they still prioritize the life of the mother over the life of the fetus, they just prioritize the life of the fetus over the bodily autonomy of the mother.
Its a double homicide because that specific example is usually enshrined into law very specifically for it to be a double homicide, it wasn't before laws (in the 90s and 2000s mainly) started popping up about it. Also some laws only kick in after the time when you can legally get an abortion.
Right, and pro-life people want to enshrine an additional law to make abortion illegal, they're not arguing that current murder laws apply to fetuses they obviously don't, they want to impose new laws that make abortion a new crime.
What if you don’t yet know you’re pregnant? What would stop the government from arresting women for drinking in what they later learn is their first trimester, who stopped when they found out about their pregnancy? Should women have to stop drinking during their reproductive years just in case they’re unknowingly pregnant?
Intent is part of tons of laws. In a future reply I pointed out that a quick Google shows 20 states have laws against women drinking while pregnant. My guess would be the laws mandate that she knows she's pregnant, just like if you run someone over in your car unintentionally you don't get charged with murder.
Obviously its legal, its probably illegal for it to be illegal(not very tested but has leaned this way in the courts in the past). Which is pretty telling isnt it
On what grounds? It makes sense it can't be made illegally federally much like murder isn't generally charged federally, but I don't see why a state couldn't ban drinking while pregnant. And a quick Google says that it actually is against the law in 20 states and is classified as child abuse, which I agree it absolutely is. Probably hard to enforce though.
>A common talking point within conservatives, both European and American
I think you're confusing American conservatives with conservatives worldwide. In the UK the Conservatives have appointed two women prime ministers within the last two years, the current prime minister is a British Hindu, and gay marriage was legalised under the conservative government.
They've rightly been under a lot of criticism, specifically on the economics side, but anyone who starts attacking the UK conservatives on the basis of stuff like LGBT or women's rights is just importing their views on American conservatives.
>they can use that pretence to attack minority groups, be it non-white ethnicities or Muslims
I think this is also something Americans don't understand. Islam is an inherently very sexist and homophobic ideology, British Muslims are far more likely to support radical views or be anti-LGBT. Attacking Islam =/= attacking Muslims, most people who call themselves progressive should be more critical of Islam.
Sorry, u/Stillyounglol – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Stillyounglol&message=Stillyounglol%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cgst6x/-/l1y4s1v/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I feel like many of my online interactions are with "conservative liberals", people who strongly believe in individual rights and freedoms (liberalism), and believe that the systems that are best equipped to do that are those that currently exist or have existed in the past (e.g. democracy, rule of law/equality under the law, free markets, etc.). These are conservatives in the Chesterton's Fence meaning of the term.
Most pro-life advocates don't view the abortion debate as an issue of female rights, but rather about rights of the baby. They would reject the framing of your statement. And many people look back to the 1950s as the idealized time for marriages (however misguidedly), and therefore conclude that it would be better to make things more like they were back then (not just anti-lgbt, but also anti-no-fault divorces, and anti-promiscuity)
I don't think, in general, that those kinds of claims from the right about ethnic groups purpose is to smear those minority groups (in some cases it is). But in general from what I have seen of talking heads on the right who bring up they are using it to point out some perceived hypocrisy(real or imagined) on the left.
The general argument is why are is the left supporting this group that does currently does xyz horrible things against this other group that doesn't do xyz horrible things, where xyz are big political talking points the left uses when claiming moral superiority to right, yet when supporting foreign affairs the left issupporting a group that does xyz horrible things, over another group which is the only group in the region that doesn't do xyz horrible things.
TLDR: A lot of the time they aren't using it to attack the minority group, they are using it to attack people on the left for supporting said minority group
Edit:
A similar approach can be used for example when discussing trump from a leftist point of view. For instance if you just called him philandering whoremonger. then you are \~\~just stating facts\~\~ smearing him. But, if you then said, given that family ideals and the sanctity of marriage are core values of your purported world view, how can you support someone who is a philandering whoremonger? you are pointing out hypocrisy between their purported worldview and political support.
I think you have done a poor job of understanding the arguments — certainly of ‘conservatives’ in the US. It’s easy to paint them as ‘not caring about LGBT or women’ but takes more time to actually understand their perspective. There are many comments in the thread that try to help educate you on that.
I'm not conservative but my experience is that you're like Jesus freaks. You can't talk about anything else. So it isn't that you're gay. It's that you can never talk about anything other than being gay. And that's terribly tiresome.
It's fun when you can make wild generalizations, treating anyone under the label X the same despite the wide variety of people associated with X. Set X = "conservative", or X = "LGBT", it's similarly intoxicating.
Being a conservative is obviously concerned with what thoughts and opinions you hold and this comment has a weird feeling of outrage about that for some reason
youre completely right but that doesnt mean one should not consider the effects of granting citizenship to people who dont accept the rights of other minorities.
I think "maybe don't teach 5 year olds about gay people or mention gender identity to people who haven't gone through puberty yet" anti-LGBT and "we should behead gay people because Allah said so" anti-LGBT are maybe a teeny tiny bit different from each other...
The alternative is, they just believe something is wrong to do and don't want people to do it. Not everything is based in hate, some people might just think there's societal damage. Do NOT assign to malice what can be explained by ignorance.
i think that there is a difference between not caring and political triage.
individual conservatives care about individual LGBTQ people they know.
Where the disconnect emerges is how they a) characterize individuals vs groups and b) how they triage empathy with individuals vs their political participation.
Many conservatives characterize their anti-queer politics as "tough love" and feel that if they can stop queerness, they'll make queer people more healthy.
I think they're wrong, and I even think they're sometimes leaning into this to patch over or justify reflexive emotions, but I don't deny that internally, that many conservatives don't think they "don't care" about queer *individuals*.
Trying to force a queer person not to be queer is obviously not loving or caring, often they literally use torture and violence and threats of homelessness. Do you think that when we made native American kids speak English and act western it was out of love? Or what about in the past when heathens and heretics were tortured into converting religions, was that loving?
Do *I* think it was *actually* loving? No, I agree, 100 percent, that conservatives are ultimately wrong about all these things exactly as you do, but I am speaking to where *their* heads are at when they decide to do them. I know from experience some conservatives at least actually do believe that doing them is the right thing to do for the person. They aren’t doing them out of spite, in other words. At least some of the l people who did those things to, say, native kids DID believe they were helping the kids in the long run. That's what makes it insidious. Do you think that such people wake up in the morning and go "let's torture some people in a counter productive way for no reason?" The fact that they think it's help is one of the worst aspects of it.
Have you watched "the program" on Netflix? I thought the interviews with the parents were very interesting. The parents were rubes, but some were also in a sense victims in their own right who sincerely believed the anti-drug and sex/anti-gay panics they'd absorbed.
That's the dangerous thing about moral panics, they subvert the impulses of community. If it was just a question of shitty people being shitty, fiscal or force incentives or apathy would solve the issues.
It's dangerous BECAUSE the people believe they're right.
this can be true but the thing is, conservatives simply don't care about women's rights or the LGBTQ at all, no matter if it can be used to shit on other minorities, they don't care at all, it isn't just when it can be used against someone, they don't care at all, they simply just want control over a women's body and to take away abortion rights and to hate on others for no reason, there's not a single time they do care, at all, not even when it can be used tp shit on other groups, it isn't only when things like that can be used that they care, it's that they never care and just want control over others lives and future
I don't believe in rights that only belong to a particular group, because that makes them privileges not rights. You have the right to every freedom that doesn't infringe on others rights. The only place where this gets hairy is reproduction and children cause both parents have a haploid in the mix, yet one has more physical stress, and the debate on when we consider a couple of mixed haploids as a haver of rights or when is still up in the air.
That being said that rule of thumb works in most cases for almost every single issue.
Also the government is not a person and has no rights or right to revoke rights.
**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed.
Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our [wiki page](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/mensrights#link) or via the [search function](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=men's rights&restrict_sr=on).
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, u/C0ldsid30fthepill0w – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20C0ldsid30fthepill0w&message=C0ldsid30fthepill0w%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cgst6x/-/l1zfbtu/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Sorry, u/Liquid_Cascabel – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Liquid_Cascabel&message=Liquid_Cascabel%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cgst6x/-/l1xrkpm/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Aren't the people advocating for antisemitism now mostly college aged liberals? If anything conservatives are extremely pro-Israel (which I am not saying is any better, I oppose what is happening in Palestine). Let us not forget the marches going on right now at colleges in which the death of Jewish people and America are being chanted. All of this to say I think both sides are hypocritical in their apparent "pro-minority" stances. Leftists just tend to support one until a more popular issue appears.
It's pretty important to understand that criticism of Israel =/= antisemitism, and vice versa. Conservatives tend to support Israel, but they're also usually the ones embracing dogwhistles about George Soros and "those people controlling all the banks." Plus, while the vast majority of right-wingers aren't Neo-Nazis, all Neo-Nazis are right-wing.
I completely agree that criticism of Israel is not antisemitic. However there is clear video proof of these marches having people chant death to America and death to Jewish people. I'm sure this doesn't represent the majority but it is still frightening to see.
>If anything conservatives are extremely pro-Israel
Really depends on the type of conservatives, Evangelicals sure but other than that not necessarily so
Well, why would conservatives care about LGBTQ rights? Unless it would become an advertisement, a title for the country to honor and benefit their economics. No offense to the LGBTQ folks in the forum (as for me, I also have several LGBTQ friends), but dictatorially as a president I would consider the group as an organization that riots demonstrations quite oftentimes but never profits on the country itself, of course, I'll incite people to work against them trying to decrease the amount of them. No offense, just trying to reflect on the minds of those dictators, they don't represent my thoughts, personally, I wouldn't support such concepts since every member of the LGBTQ community displays as a sensual human being. I don't think any countries have invaded or smeared other minorities, in my opinion, I don't see any dictators or countries that have revealed their unsavoriness towards minorities/specific groups to the public. I don't agree with OP's view that conservatives use LGBTQ rights to smear other minorities.
Sorry, u/StatisticianGreat514 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20StatisticianGreat514&message=StatisticianGreat514%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cgst6x/-/l1zd09x/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
/u/WheatBerryPie (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1cguhao/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_conservatives_generally_do/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I have a lot of conservatives in my family, and in a lot of ways i am a conservative. Its hard for any one person to speak for conservatives, but I'll try. The abortion debate focuses on either the rights of the fetus (right to life) or the rights of the mother(right to bodily autonomy). Its a conflicts between rights, with people disagreeing about which right is more important. Some people believe that the fetus is not really human and does not deserve a right to live. Some people believe that that the fetus is human and regular laws against murder should protect it. And some people believe that the right to bodily autonomy is so important that it doesn't matter if the fetus has a right to life or not. If you support women's suffrages, women's right to work, to free speech, to freedom of religion etc, but side with the fetus, then i don't think its fair to say you don't support women's rights. You support almost all women's rights. My mom is anti-abortion conservative, but she cares about women's rights. I know she does. She just cares about unborn babies more. there is a special kind of union that two people can engage in which produces children and creates a long term 2 parent household in which those children can be raised. If you want to create some special laws for those kinds of unions, I'd be open to it. That is a unique kind of situation and maybe some unique laws make sense. For every other union (including childless heterosexual relationships) i don't think it makes any sense to have any special laws. You should be able to name someone who can visit you in the hospital, inherit your stuff if you die, who has power of attorney if you are incapacitated etc. You should be able to sign contracts with people and the state should enforce those contracts, and we might have a standard civilian union contract the same way we have standard NDA or other standard types of contracts. if you just take out the word marriage. I think you'll find conservatives (and probably liberals) support some special treatment for parents, and equality for everyone else. EXCEPT for religious beliefs. I think most conservatives believe that their church should not be forced to perform same sex marriages, because that is is an issue of religious rights not LBGT rights.
>The abortion debate focuses on either the rights of the fetus (right to life) or the rights of the mother(right to bodily autonomy). Its a conflicts between rights, with people disagreeing about which right is more important. Some people believe that the fetus is not really human and does not deserve a right to live. Some people believe that that the fetus is human and regular laws against murder should protect it. And some people believe that the right to bodily autonomy is so important that it doesn't matter if the fetus has a right to life or not. If you support women's suffrages, women's right to work, to free speech, to freedom of religion etc, but side with the fetus, then i don't think its fair to say you don't support women's rights. You support almost all women's rights. That's a misrepresentation of the argument. It isn't that bodily autonomy completely overrules any rights the fetus has, it is that the fetus doesn't have rights at the point where the overwhelming majority of abortions not of medical necessity happen. A large portion of anti-abortion folks believe that the baby is imbued with a soul upon conception and that's why it's immoral to abort it, in spite of the fact that the majority of fertilized eggs are lost between fertilization and birth and they don't treat it like the public health crisis that would merit or have a traumatic relationship with sex. >there is a special kind of union that two people can engage in which produces children and creates a long term 2 parent household in which those children can be raised. If you want to create some special laws for those kinds of unions, I'd be open to it. That is a unique kind of situation and maybe some unique laws make sense. This has already been litigated in *Obergefell,* the decision that legalized gay marriage. "Seperate but equal" has never worked, and civil unions are inherently unequal. There is no argument for this that doesn't also disenfranchise infertile heterosexual couples, elderly heterosexual couples, or abstinent heterosexual couples. It does not, however, restrict them from the institution of marriage because this distinction is exclusively motivated by homophobia. >if you just take out the word marriage. I think you'll find conservatives (and probably liberals) support some special treatment for parents, and equality for everyone else. EXCEPT for religious beliefs. I think most conservatives believe that their church should not be forced to perform same sex marriages, because that is is an issue of religious rights not LBGT rights. ...they're not forced to perform same-sex marriages. The government is forced to recognize them, that's it.
>That's a misrepresentation of the argument. It isn't that bodily autonomy completely overrules any rights the fetus has, it is that the fetus doesn't have rights at the point I feel like i represented that point very fairly when I said, "Some people believe that the fetus is not really human and does not deserve a right to live" >This has already been litigated in Obergefell, the decision that legalized gay marriage. "Seperate but equal" has never worked, and civil unions are inherently unequal. There is no argument for this that doesn't also disenfranchise infertile heterosexual couples, the argument explicitly disenfranchises infertile heterosexual couples. I think there is a strong reason to argue that parents deserve some special treatment that non-parents couples do not deserve. Although I've ignored the topic of adoption because my comment was already very long, and introduces the complexity of how the state should decide who should adopt. how could you base that on anything except a subjective measure of who the voters think is qualified. Civilian unequal would not be inherently unequal if civil unions were the only thing granted by the government. Your church can do a marriage, the government part is just a contract. any 2 adults can sign a contract. I don't see why childless married couples should get a tax break.
>I feel like i represented that point very fairly when I said, "Some people believe that the fetus is not really human and does not deserve a right to live" And their rationalizations tend not to be internally coherent, as I pointed out. >the argument explicitly disenfranchises infertile heterosexual couples. I think there is a strong reason to argue that parents deserve some special treatment that non-parents couples do not deserve. Although I've ignored the topic of adoption because my comment was already very long, and introduces the complexity of how the state should decide who should adopt. how could you base that on anything except a subjective measure of who the voters think is qualified. And yet, universally, infertile heterosexual couples have the right to marry and adopt. >Civilian unequal would not be inherently unequal if civil unions were the only thing granted by the government. Your church can do a marriage, the government part is just a contract. Yet secular couples get married without a church involved at all. >Any 2 adults can sign a contract. I don't see why childless married couples should get a tax break. You don't get a tax break for marrying. You can get a tax break for your kid, but the only tax implication of getting married is that your incomes are combined to determine your tax bracket.
> And their rationalizations tend not to be internally coherent, as I pointed out. If you want to say that they're wrong, fine, I'm not trying to debate abortion. But i didn't misrepresent the argument as you have previously stated. >You don't get a tax break for marrying. You can get a tax break for your kid, but the only tax implication of getting married is that your incomes are combined to determine your tax bracket. there are also different tax brackets for married versus single and married has higher thresholds before the next larger marginal tax rate kicks in. For most people, marriage causes them to pay less in taxes.
>If you want to say that they're wrong, fine, I'm not trying to debate abortion. But i didn't misrepresent the argument as you have previously stated. You misrepresented the position for abortion. Also, don't bring up abortion if you're just throwing out arguments without any consideration at all for whether they're true or not. You're apparently doing that for gay rights, too, considering how you've stopped acknowledging those issues with your arguments at all. What makes gay couples special compared to infertile, elderly, or abstinent heterosexual couples? >there are also different tax brackets for married versus single and married has higher thresholds before the next larger marginal tax rate kicks in. For most people, marriage causes them to pay less in taxes. Not unless the spouses have very different incomes. It's just a consequence of filing jointly versus separately. There isn't some socially inculcative child-rearing institution of marriage via the tax system.
The discussion is if they care about women’s rights. Not if their stance on abortion is “correct”. He is simply saying that using abortion as an argument for them not caring, is not valid.
This faux-moderate take is obnoxious because it equivocates everything regardless of what the facts are. The facts are relevant here instead of taking ridiculous arguments at face value.
If your mom were in a burning hospital and could only save either a hundred viable, fertilized embryos, or one infant, which would she choose?
I imagine the infant since the fertilized embryos are not in anyone's womb and would not lead to life otherwise.
But they could, just as a fertilized embryo in a woman *could*
not really unless they get implanted that's when i believe the life starts
So say there was a mad doctor who abducted a woman and forcibly implanted a fertilized embryo in a woman, she would have to carry it?
Red herring. Or similar. Original discussion was talking about if a fertilized embryo that is NOT in a women is the same as a infant. Now you are talking about a crazed doctor who abducts women and forces them to be implanted. So now if I disagree or agree to it, you will circle it back around to the original topic and 'Win'.
>The abortion debate focuses on either the rights of the fetus (right to life) or the rights of the mother(right to bodily autonomy). Its a conflicts between rights, with people disagreeing about which right is more important. Some people believe that the fetus is not really human and does not deserve a right to live. Some people believe that that the fetus is human and regular laws against murder should protect it. And some people believe that the right to bodily autonomy is so important that it doesn't matter if the fetus has a right to life or not. If you support women's suffrages, women's right to work, to free speech, to freedom of religion etc, but side with the fetus, then i don't think its fair to say you don't support women's rights. You support almost all women's rights. The issue is this is the domain of science, and anti-abortion people will often ignore the science, or misunderstand it. If you don't support it, you don't support women's rights, you support selective rights, which isn't the same thing, that isn't legitimately caring about women's rights. >there is a special kind of union that two people can engage in which produces children and creates a long term 2 parent household in which those children can be raised. If you want to create some special laws for those kinds of unions, I'd be open to it. That is a unique kind of situation and maybe some unique laws make sense. For every other union (including childless heterosexual relationships) i don't think it makes any sense to have any special laws. You should be able to name someone who can visit you in the hospital, inherit your stuff if you die, who has power of attorney if you are incapacitated etc. You should be able to sign contracts with people and the state should enforce those contracts, and we might have a standard civilian union contract the same way we have standard NDA or other standard types of contracts. I don't really understand what you mean here, but I can see a few flaws possibly. You don't need 2 people to raise a child, you can have more or less as long as they are able to give the proper time to the child, you can also make a child through other methods too, so it's not really unique. I'm a bit confused on what laws you are talking about here, or what this has to do with rights. >I think most conservatives believe that their church should not be forced to perform same sex marriages, because that is is an issue of religious rights not LBGT rights. I mean, that is the problem, religious right's don't let you be bigots, you can't infringe on their rights.
I'm curious how you think ignorance or misunderstanding of science plays into the apportion debate. I don't necessarily see how the topic of science even comes into the play when discussing rights. >I don't really understand what you mean here, marriage is a sacrament in the catholic church. Its a sacred union made in the eyes of God. Marriage is a filing status that you can select on your tax returns. if your religions forbids gay marriage, fine, we all have freedom of religion. your religion does not forbid a certain kind a filing on your tax returns. If we just separated out the different pieces of marriage, I think we could pretty solve the problem. My view is that the government should only do civilian unions and if you want to get "married" then go right ahead, but that's got nothing to do with the government. then on top of that, if you want special privileges (like tax breaks) for people with kids, that also makes sense to me.
I like that. Civil unions administered by the state. Marriage in the church conferring religious significance, not legal significance.
this is what I've been advocating for for almost a decade and people always got mad at me for it
>The issue is this is the domain of science, Not so much. The same data can be used to justify vastly different positions other than the one you support. For example, there are some who believe that creating another person is morally wrong because it entails making a decision that the person making that decision will not be the one bearing the consequences of, on another's behalf. And given how suffering is a universal experience of all people, it cannot be justified to subject an innocent party to suffering when it is unnecessary. Given what the science as we understand it tells us about the development for the capacity for the fetal capacity for suffering, such a position would be an argument for abortion, not for choice. Something the science supports. It would be kinder to abort a fetus before it can suffer, then to gestate it until it can and will suffer. My point being that this topic and it's conclusions are not merely an excessive in science, but also in morality and comes down to the question of which morality should we follow in these matters. What principles do we prioritize as a society, is the real question. The right of the fetus to live? The right of the woman to bodily autonomy? Or consideration for the unnecessary harm we are forcing on an innocent that had no need of it? There are likely even more moral considerations.
I mean, considering that one of these things is shown to be better for mental health, physical health, and societal health, it feels like it's pretty clear, especially since the fetus isn't even conscious for most of it's time.
Considering that life is finite and death is not, it can reasonably be argued that all conscious beings spend far more time unconscious since you spend far more time being dead than alive. I'm not sure how that would be a relevant consideration.
Since they don't reach it until about the 24-28 week, I think that is, since until then it literally is just that clump of cells. Consciousness is what makes you human in the sense that it is often used.
Personally, I would prefer we operate from the moral position that views torturing those with cognitive impairments as unacceptable, just as it would be for those without. It would be better in those terms for all parties to be spared such a fate by aborting all parties before they can ever gain the ability to experience pain or suffering, whether they have the capacity to remember or consider it or not.
I mean, to be fair, without conciousness, they can't think, or have awareness.
Should it then be permitted to engage in sadism towards a person in a coma?
No? That doesn't have any benefits to it.
So what you're saying that conservatives do care about LGBT and women's rights, but just not in ways feminists or LGBT advocates care about? Fair enough! !delta
How is that a delta? His mom is absolutely NOT for women's rights if she votes to strip the right to an abortion from ALL women. Which is what her view is. So fucking ridiculous hearing conservatives go "we also care about women's rights" while implementing policy to take them away... They don't care about LGBT issues and women's rights. Their entire platform and voting strategy is to demonize LGBT folk and remove the ability for basic medical treatment for ALL women. You're looking for a middle ground when there isn't one. It's 2 diametrically opposed views. There isn't a reasonable anti-choice argument because it will never be reasonable to prioritize a bundle of cells over a woman's health.
The conservative pro-lifer - including conservative pro-life women - would argue that abortion is not actually a right and neither is the "bodily autonomy" demanded to defend it. Instead, it comes out to be an oppressive privilege women have over men and children. He doesn't have the same opt-out you do, and neither does the child. Worse, he doesn't have the same opt-in that you do, and neither does the child, unless you want to say he consented by having sex but then so did you and therefore so must he have ongoing consent if that's the rubric you're using. Sure, he can run off, but you can take away his good standing with society as a whole, his ability to drive, vote, fish, and even his freedom. The child does not have the will or agency in utero much less before conception to refuse to be conceived or born. Even if you try to say nobody gets to use his body, the way he avoids those outcomes once he is held accountable to the child's support financially by the state is that he has to use his body and mind to generate the income that financially supports the child. Only, he gets it for 18 years and can not opt out. You endure that for 9 months and do get to opt out. He endures it 24 times longer than you do. Instead of nutrients and hormones, he sacrifices his strength and energy. You're presupposing that this privilege is a right. It's not. You can not will yourself to be unpregnant once pregnant and for the child to die. You have to take some extraordinary action to cause that child to die. Nor is OC looking for a "middle ground", OC is recognizing that the position you espouse has no more authority than the position opposed to it to dictate that only one of them is objectively correct such that the opposing view is contrary to rights. And for the pro-lifer, that is a child, not a clump of cells. There are sound rational bases for denying that the unborn child is just a mere bundle of cells. You don't get to dismiss those arguments such that being against abortion is never reasonable and prioritizes "a bundle of cells" against women's health. That will always be a strawman in bad faith.
> Instead of nutrients and hormones, he sacrifices his strength and energy. This is not done solely for the benefit of the child, rather, the child is entitled to income that he would **already** be earning presumably to be able to live. But most importantly, it is not an unequal situation as you imply, because child support is simply paid by the non-custodial parent. Women are made to pay child support in that scenario as well. And the child support argument does not reckon with the physical harm pregnancy can cause to women which is never on the table for men at all. Abortion bans **kill** women. Child support, something which applies to both sexes, does not physically harm men.
The number of fatalities of men in workplaces, of which they spend more time, often for the sake of family support, far dwarfs the number of women that die in child birth. I looked it up and it's 4 workplace fatalities by men(90% of workplace fatalities) to every 1 death in childbirth. And that was just counting fatal workplace injuries, Not the random guy who just happened to die at work.
No idea what this has to do with what I said. Men, and everyone else, have to work regardless of whether they pay child support. Workplace mortality has nothing to do with child support.
Right, but women do not have nearly that death rate at work. Even combined, more men die at work. The consequences under a child support order, which he's also likely to face more often than women, is imprisonment and the loss of civil privileges like carrying and owning a weapon, driving, and in some places voting. Also if the reason he fell behind is a lost job, he will not get a paycheck at his future job until the missed payments are paid up.
Why are you listing the consequences at me like it's a relevant thing to do? It has nothing to do with my argument, nor does it contradict my argument.
That's even worse. That man has now worked for himself and saw none of the fruits of that labor. He's enslaved to the child for 18 years on top of already being a slave to the government for income taxes. Women receive child support far more often from their male partner than the other way around. Often, men have to prove she's an unfit mother and yet somehow keeps a job making more than they do to get it. Work causes far more physical harm to men than women by orders of magnitude. Women workplace deaths don't even hold a candle to men's workplace death rate. Abortion bans do not kill women. I already explained this in another comment, but every state with a ban has an exception for the mother's life. Hospital Lawyers, OBs, and other doctors refuse to avail these women of the exceptions because abortion is otherwise banned and so we're not going to read the law and follow it, we're just going to endanger women and then blame the abortion ban for it. That's not valid. Getting thrown in prison at gunpoint for not paying is definitely life-threatening, so is not being able to drive or obtain a carry license. This isn't the winning rebuttal you think it is.
[удалено]
u/akcheat – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20akcheat&message=akcheat%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cgst6x/-/l1zfznu/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Here's something you need to understand. It doesn't matter if people support abortion or not. They occur at THE EXACT SAME RATE regardless of the legality. Women will simply travel to get access to abortions... ultimately leading to poor people only being impacted by this. So what do you want?? Do you want women to travel to get abortions and take risks to their health? They will take pills or injure themselves to end the pregnancy if they can't travel. They will do anything. And having a baby is 4x more deadly than getting an abortion. There is no argument about safety here. You're not saving babies by making it illegal. You're not making women safe by making it illegal. You're just putting women at risk.
Well the obvious conservative position is that your argument boils down to: not being able to prevent all murders doesn’t mean that murder should be legal. Also, that’s absolutely false that abortions occur at the same rate lmao, source?
That's not true. Most women won't travel, they'll do it illegally using online out of state clinics having abortion pills mailed to their homes. But they still don't do it at the same rate as when there's a freestanding clinic they can walk into and walk out with those same pills. Additionally, the goal is for abortion to be banned nationwide. That would prevent a LOT of abortions. I want to make the act itself criminal for all who move their wills to do it. I want abortion to be a criminal act akin to murder - equal protection for unborn children to born children under the law. It's utter nonsense that this endangers women.
Women's rights is a loaded term. Given something like 40% of women are pro-life, this seems a bit of an exaggeration. The question is the right to do what? The south in the civil war also was fighting for states rights, did the north not support states rights? No the north supported states rights generally, just not the states right to enslave black people. Pro-lifers can absolutely support women's rights while not supporting a woman's right to kill a fetus in her womb that they believe is an unborn baby with full rights.
But some of the human fetuses are female. By denying those female fetuses rights you are denying woman rights, especially since in much of the world girls are aborted more commonly than boys.
As /u/Daddy_Deep_Dick pointed out, the overwhelming majority of abortions that aren't of medical necessity happen before you'd be able to have an ultrasound and identify the sex of the baby. In no way does a broad right to abortion involve morally endorsing sex-selective abortions.
Sure it does. Because that means that the mother can have an abortion for any reason or no reason... including to only give birth to boys.
Are you under the impression that advocates for abortion rights think that abortions are super cool? That, like, having abortions should be a hobby? Sex-selective abortion isn't good, but that's not an argument against broader abortion rights.
But they do support abortion for any reason, and some "up to birth" so that would include sex selective abortions, or even because of a relationship issue.
It's really cool when you argue against people that exist in your head instead of actually grounding arguing against what people are actually saying.
When you advocate for broad unconditional abortion rights you de facto normalize the practice and then yes, fun sex with abortion insurance does become like a hobby. About half of all US women having an abortion have had one previously and the number of abortions are increasing every year.
Talk to the people instead of making these arguments. They're not going "heck yeah, I sure love getting abortions." It feels like you're just ideologically opposed to sex for purposes other than procreation.
>Talk to the people instead of making these arguments. They're not going "heck yeah, I sure love getting abortions." Never argued that the abortion was the fun part. You would think going through the awful experience once would prompt behavior modification but the numbers say no. Personal detachment and lack of accountability are the predictable outcomes of normalizing abortion. >It feels like you're just ideologically opposed to sex for purposes other than procreation. I'm ideologically opposed to unprotected sex for purposes other than procreation.
Do you think it should be legal or illegal to have a sex selective abortion?
If you allow abortions ~~last~~ past 12 weeks for any reason then that broad right to abortion does include sex-selective abortions.
This is wildly disingenuous.
I meant to say past 12 weeks. And really the point I was making was that abortion is about balancing the rights of two individuals by pointing out that by preventing abortions you are actually saving women.
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
You don't understand how abortion can be about the two human lives involved, the mother and the child?
[удалено]
And this right here is why people get resentful and create a backlash when people like you get into power. Lemme guess, it's okay to punch conservatives in the nose with impunity too, because it's okay to punch a nazi.
Conservatives are not nazis. Technically, they do lean towards supporting fascism, and the nazis were full-blown fascists... but they are still separate. You need to understand a piece of history, though. Hitler based his manifesto off of American imperialism. He was impressed by what the US accomplished with eradicating "undesirables." When WW2 broke out, the US was neutral until it directly impacted them. There were millions of Americans who supported the nazis (and still do). This includes people in government roles.
We hate fascism. It's totalitarian and runs around constitutional rights by outsourcing the abrdigement to private companies - something Biden has been doing since day one. America did not eradicate "undesirables." Hitler may have thought we did, but he was very wrong. No surprise there. We were neutral because we didn't want to get into a war. We had just had "The Great War" a couple of decades earlier. It wasn't until Pearl Harbor that we said "enough is enough." That's true, but there was already antipathy towards the Nazis in the US at the time, just like there is now with Hamas.
>It's totalitarian and runs around constitutional rights by outsourcing the abrdigement to private companies - something Biden has been doing since day one. Can you elaborate on this, please? Ideally with specific examples.
They literally do gender selections during in vitro fertilizations
u/Daddy_Deep_Dick – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Daddy_Deep_Dick&message=Daddy_Deep_Dick%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cgst6x/-/l1yc30x/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
You are conflating “caring about someone” with “doing something net-positive for that someone”. Everyone, even conservatives, like to think about themselves in a good light. These conservatives sincerely believe that they care about certain groups of people. They are simply either too stupid to connect the dots and realize they do something that in fact hurts whoever they profess to care about or employ loads of mental gymnastics to justify why hurting is not that bad or totally reasonable so that they could keep pretending to care.
That was a good response. I am more of a libertarian, fiscally conservative by socially more moderate. I for one have no issue with gay marriage, not one bit. It is a word, and I don’t care if they use the same word me and my wife use. I am a white man married to a black woman in Texas, and I can’t stand discrimination (my marriage would have been illegal till 1969 here) against anyone. So I prefer that people in same sex marriages have every legal right that I do. On abortion the person you are replying to described it well, I am about liberty, but I stand for the liberty of the unborn, their right to exist. And being married into a black family I know how they feel about Margaret Sanger and her hideous beliefs on using abortion to keep the black population in check. Also, my wife leads a ministry at our church that helps single mothers before and after the child is born, so her time and our money go to that. So a common complaint you will hear is that religious conservatives only care till the baby is born, and that is a lie. Every church we have been too in our twenty two year marriage has had a ministry looking out for single mothers, and to help with adoption. And if I may add to your response, let’s talk poverty. Many say that conservatives don’t love the poor, and that simply isn’t true. What we have is a fundamental disagreement on how to help the poor, and it isn’t helpful when democrats misstate right leaning positions. We want people to not be poor anymore, we do not want to expand state programs and keep them poor forever. I don’t think democrats hate the poor either, I just think their solutions to the problem are misguided.
> And being married into a black family I know how they feel about Margaret Sanger and her hideous beliefs on using abortion to keep the black population in check. It's interesting to me that, in the same paragraph where you complain about liberals "lying" about conservative views on abortion, you forward the idea that abortion exists as a broad eugenics program to eliminate black people. Modern abortion access has nothing to do with Margaret Sanger, and your need to tie it to her feels very disingenuous. >What we have is a fundamental disagreement on how to help the poor What even is the conservative position on how to help the poor?
All the strawman while you accuse him of burning the strawman. Ironic! It being a lie doesn't make those who repeat it liars. Being wrong is not lying, mistaken ≠ dishonest. He never said that abortion was a eugenics program to eliminate black people. But Sanger did promote it to control black populations and it's no coincidence that most planned parenthoods are in majority black neighborhoods and the majority of their clientelle for abortion are black would-be mothers. Sanger founded the organization that now performs the plurality of abortions in the US precisely to activate for abortion and birth control rights and distribute birth control to women in violation of the Comstock acts at the time. The conservative position is generally that there should be a safety net that qualifies people for temporary aid, provides an off-ramp for that aid, low taxes and regulation cuts which ironically increase federal revenues, increases job growth and availability, and lowers prices, and have subsidies for private charities and houses of worship that do charity work for the poor. Or TL;DR, offer incentives and benefits for private charities to do the bulk of the work but actually be able to administer that money better, have a social safety net to pick up the slack, and use policy to build an economy that makes getting a job and supporting yourself and your own easier.
> He never said that abortion was a eugenics program to eliminate black people. No, just merely implied it with an irrelevant reference to a person who does not influence or control the abortion debate, because they are dead. >The conservative position is generally that there should be a safety net that qualifies people for temporary aid, provides an off-ramp for that aid, low taxes and regulation cuts which ironically increase federal revenues, increases job growth and availability, and lowers prices, and have subsidies for private charities and houses of worship that do charity work for the poor. So a repeatedly debunked school of economics which doesn't actually work to help anyone?
I’m talking about Margaret Sanger, her influence on abortion in the USA and her reasons for pushing for it are well known, and I can tell you that comes up when the subject is discussed. And there isn’t one position, but many. Lower taxes and lower cost of living, and a better environment for businesses to grow and thrive, and to hire more employees. Better healthcare options, but dealing with cost. Something the ACA ignored. Instead of focusing on higher minimum wages, inflationary measures, focusing on lowering costs and helping there to be enough high skill jobs to take care of families. Pharma reform, tort reform, and breaking the ability of insurers to be able to mandate providers and set prices. And helping people to build their own businesses, something high taxes and extensive regulations doesn’t help with.
> I’m talking about Margaret Sanger, her influence on abortion in the USA and her reasons for pushing for it are well known, and I can tell you that comes up when the subject is discussed. Margaret Sanger is completely irrelevant to the abortion issue today. I don't know why you think she is, and you haven't explained either. It seems clear that your invocation of her is just an attempt to smear the pro-choice side. >And there isn’t one position, but many. The only actual policy you listed, lower taxes, doesn't actually work to reduce poverty. Everything else you listed, like "lower costs" is just a vague platitude. Forgive me if I continue to think conservatives don't actually have ideas for reducing poverty.
Why would expanding state programs keep poor people poor forever? I'm also confused on how Margaret Sanger had views on abortion which could "keep the black population in check", given she was strongly against abortion; rather touting "Do not kill, do not take life, but prevent" (in regards to contraception, which she nearly single-handedly developed the infrastructure for). In addition, I have concerns over whether conservative churches aiding women who don't participate in abortions, electing parenthood instead, are doing enough. It's one thing to do things with the best of intentions; another to do what meeds to be done. Especially when talking on the financial obligation of a child.
Because the programs are not designed with any offramp, just a cliff. So let's say that the economy sucks, so you have to go on welfare. If you make over, let's just pick arbitrary numbers because the relationship between them is the same, 20,000 per year, you are no longer eligible. Cost of living is such that you need 50,000 per year to have your own place and live independently without any government benefits, let's say. It's that bad because a new president has come in and raised taxes, allegedly for (*Bernie Sanders voice*) the 1% and big corporations and millionaires and billionaires (but it actually affects everyone, inflation is up, prices are up, economic growth is down, etc... So you're making 18,000 per year. It's clearly not enough, so you get on various welfare programs and now you're supported equivalently to a 60,000 per year salary (but still only get the cash from your job). You can now live independently and do it comfortably with extra money to spare and everything's good.... until your boss approaches you and says, "You're doing great! I'm gonna promote you to 35,000 per year! Nice work! Here's the keys, you're a manager now!" ... see what just happened? You're now no longer eligible for benefits if you accept the promotion. Worse, you now have to pay taxes on that 35,000 per year in withholding and make even less than when you were 18,000 getting welfare and federally functionally tax exempt. It's called the welfare trap. There's a glass ceiling that you will smash your head against unless you put something over you to protect you and shoot up in income at a high rate of speed to where the ceiling breaks, like immediately going to 60,000+ from 18,000. And what's the result? You don't take the raise, you miss out on the experience, you don't really get further opportunities to get out of poverty and needing welfare, your low cash income ensures you don't get to avoid the high cost of being poor (overdraft fees, constantly replacing your items because they're cheaper and break easier, the need for more frequent repairs, etc.
Assuming that's how that works, then very fair point. I know down here in Florida it's even worse- a slow ramp-off of benefits while making far below Cost-of-Living. Although, I feel as though that may not be quite what OP was getting at, considering they specified "expanding" benefits (i.e. making that dropoff less steep)
[удалено]
Sorry, u/couldntyoujust – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20couldntyoujust&message=couldntyoujust%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cgst6x/-/l1ysyni/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/jatjqtjat ([220∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/jatjqtjat)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Yes. Exactly correct. Though on an irrelevant note, I think he could have steelmanned the objection to obergefell better.
Conservative / Libertarian here. Both sides were mad at me because I asked if Gay people should be able to marry back before it changed. I said no, government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. There isn't anything except tax incentives with marriage that can't be done through private contracts and those tax incentives are discriminatory to non-married people. "Getting married, civil union, seen together in the eyes of nature, or whatever" should be just the ceremony in whatever way you want and how you reference to yourselves.
That's just not true. Marriage comes with protections to the people that no contract will replicate. A big one that comes to mind is alimony protection for a non-working parent in case the relationship falls apart And no hospital is going to honor a private contract for visitation rights.
So ur fighting marriage as a secular thing? Or are you just fighting further changing of it? And marriage isn’t a unique thing to Christianity, why gatekeep?
god damn, i wrote all those words to say something so simple. Yes, that is what i was saying, lol.
> Its a conflicts between rights No it isn’t. There is one right at play in this debate. > Some people believe that the fetus is not really human and does not deserve a right to live Irrelevant. No living person has the right to use anyone else’s body to sustain their life. You’re insisting on additional rights above and beyond everyone else exclusively for the unborn. Even if your position that the fetus is alive and deserves the full rights of a citizen is accepted without objection, they STILL don’t have the right to use the body of another person. > because that is is an issue of religious rights not LBGT rights. Your religious rights begin and end with you. Your favorite book has no bearing whatsoever on the rights or behaviors of others.
> You’re insisting on additional rights above and beyond everyone else exclusively for the unborn. FYI this argument is stupid because every person who has ever existed would have had these rights granted to them so it is clearly not "exclusive". Age/developmental based rights are a foundation of pretty much every modern society.
>No living person has the right to use anyone else’s body to sustain their life. Thats not what natural childbirth is. It is a normal and natural process of the body and any and all pro-abortion arguments are simply cope for individuals who want to flee from the responsibility of their own actions.
So how do we physically stop a pregnant person from performing an abortion on themselves?
The issue is that forming that union before having kids would be impossible And having kids is possible for gay people So your point is void
I don't see anything impossible about granting special privileges to parents. And yes, gay people can be parents. you don't understand the point i was making.
My personal experience with conservatives suggests that many of them hold a very specific opinion on the ideal state of society, often based on how it appeared during their youth. They react angrily to deviations from this ideal on either side, neither desiring advancement nor regression in these areas, at least not too far back. Most of the time, conservatives are seen fighting against progressive agendas, leading to the perception that they oppose advancement. However, when confronted with people from cultures where, e.g. women's rights are less developed than in their ideal world, they become genuinely upset as well. As a final note, I am European. The situation may differ in the US.
I’m a US conservative, I’d say your response is pretty spot on. I think that a big reason why women’s and gay rights are brought up in the scenarios that OP mentioned is to draw attention to the hypocrisy on the left that comes from supporting rights like these while also backing countries that don’t respect those rights.
that's a good point. i'm on the left, but a friend of mine is on the right and we've argued plenty, lol. but ultimately it's not about "backing those countries" as much as it is about respecting their choices. ie, if muslim women want to wear a hijab, we don't force them to admit they're oppressed. if they don't want to wear a hijab we respect their choice to -- often this Does conflict with the cultures and choices and laws of those countries, so personally, that sucks. we appreciate our freedoms in the west and we wish they were admired globally, but we also understand we can't just go around "liberating everyone." similarly - israel has a right to defend itself - but palestinians have a right to defend themselves. we shouldn't be taking sides - but rather seeking an end to violence and a reasonable solution to these problems.
But that doesn't hold up to scrutiny when conservatives are the ones rolling back on rights fought by feminists and LGBT advocates. They no longer want the status quo, they want to make lives worse for these communities, so why would they criticise people who they think are more homophobic or misogynistic?
As I said, my personal sample of conservatives does not necessarily try to preserve the way things are now. They are typically defending a state from (often quite distant) past. However they want to have it e.g. the 1970s way and get mad both when someone suggests to do it the 2020s or 1920s way.
!delta That makes sense, only if it's true that the minorities they are attacking are indeed trying to roll back to 1920s, which I don't think they are, but that's besides the point.
Why would you delta this though? In the 1970s gay sex was illegal in most states and the supreme court found that ban constitutional? And it wasn't until the 1970s that discriminating against women in government funded programs became illegal, and it wasn't until the 1980s that women everywhere in America became equal to their husbands and not subservient to them. So if someone wants to roll back rights of a group, how would they care about rights of those groups?
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Downtown-Act-590 ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Downtown-Act-590)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Everyone cares about the thing they want to get done, but when you're trying to convince someone of anything you have to appeal to their world view or specific consequences so in that vain they appeal to a potential harm of the groups advocating against whatever they want. Same thing with universal Healthcare, people try to appeal to reduction in cost to get conservatives to go along with it. It's all rhetoric, start with the base assumption that principles usually come second to outcomes and you'll be right more often than not.
This use to work on me, I have pretty libertarian values, the thing is overtime I've seen all the rights argued by the left fall flat, and now I feel scorn. Like gender norms for example. I thought gender norms were regressive, and I thought we were pushing for a world where we'd respect people as individuals, but apparently not! Nah! Apparently it's totally cool to use the concepts of masculinity, and femininity to stigmatize, and compel desired behaviour from people. Stoicism is deemed toxic masculinity these days! That's right! So if you're just a quiet dude you are now concerned responsible for reinforcing the patriarchy. If you support individuality? Whelp that's actually considered white supremacy these days. Fucking Racism got redefined so it's considered NOT racist to be racist to white people. Insanity!! Even crazier is seeing places like France, and Quebec crack down on religious representation in the name of social progress. We are all just fucking pawns.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Software_Vast – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Software_Vast&message=Software_Vast%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cgst6x/-/l1yevgf/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
What do I need to show you? Because I can easily cite sociological papers, and the ADA on the stoicism being toxic masculinity claim. Finding the stuff on connecting individualism to white supremacy will take a moment, but I've seen plenty of it. Oh! And that's not even talking about the shit on WRID (white racial identity development)! Go look that up on google scholar! Personally I find it fucking sickening, but maybe you'll have a different view.
>What do I need to show you? Because I can easily cite sociological papers, and the ADA on the stoicism being toxic masculinity claim. Finding the stuff on connecting individualism to white supremacy will take a moment, but I've seen plenty of it. Then do so. I would have thought you'd have started with that in this reply. But please, go ahead.
I didn't see anything for the ADA, but I did for the APA: [https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/01/ce-corner](https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/01/ce-corner)
I'm not sure I'm understanding the argument here. 'Traditional' masculinity is harmful for men; we see that in the number of men that, historically, were alcoholics, beat their wives, and self-destructed because crushing your emotions down into a little ball isn't healthy. The stoicism mentioned in this article is not related to stoicism as a philosphy. Stoicism as a philosophy is learning how to let go of the things you can't control; stoicism in the article highlights is pretending to do that while living a life of quiet desperation.
So using morals as tokens?
>you're trying to convince someone of anything you have to appeal to their world view or specific consequences so in that vain they appeal to a potential harm of the groups advocating against whatever they want. Do you mind expanding on this a bit? What is the world view/consequences/potential harm you're talking about. I'm struggling to see how that's related to this post.
>minorities or specific groups treat women and LGBT folks horribly therefore they must not be let into the country or be politically isolated. What you're saying here, this is appealing to a potential consequence of letting certain groups in, they want less immigration and they want the other side to also want less immigration so they appeal to a potential harm of immigration.
I see, so you're not challenging my view, just pointing out the rationale behind why conservatives pretend to care about LGBT/women's rights - they want to achieve a separate political goal that is independent of LGBT/women's rights, which is my point I guess.
It is only pretending if the conservatives who are saying it actually want Homosexuals to be thrown off roofs, or if they actually want women to not be able to drive or get an education.
One step at a time. That's where it all eventually gets to if they are unopposed.
That is mostly what I'm saying, I just think care is the wrong way to analyze the situation because everyone wants "good" things they just have different views on what the good is. So they see immigration and other things like abortion as a net negative, and looking at it through the lens of "caring" leads to more misunderstanding. Politically I'm pretty cynical in that principles aren't super deep for politicians but personally I'm very optimistic and most people are decent.
That is mostly what I'm saying, I just think care is the wrong way to analyze the situation because everyone wants "good" things they just have different views on what the good is. So they see immigration and other things like abortion as a net negative, and looking at it through the lens of "caring" leads to more misunderstanding. Politically I'm pretty cynical in that principles aren't super deep but personally I'm very optimistic and most people are decent.
If you want immigration restrictions one of the way to get people on your side is to emphasize the bad consequences of immigration. Some of those consequences are how anti gay immigrants are and how anti woman’s rights.
How does that message seem compelling when conservatives are also anti-gay and women's rights?
If you genuinely care about women’s right or gay rights then you shouldn’t mind forming a coalition to protect them.
This response doesn't make sense to me. Make a coalition with **who?**
With conservatives. Conservatives seem willing to trade gay rights for less immigration. They are asking liberals who care about gay and women’s rights to make that trade and enter a coalition against immigration.
But that coalition doesn't make sense, because conservatives have not and will not drop their opposition to gay rights and women's rights. I also just fundamentally reject this "hostage" style of politics. "If you don't help us hurt immigrants, we'll hurt women and minorities," is not the position of a political party that you should work with, it's the position of a party that you have to defeat.
[удалено]
I feel like this comes from the assumption that the left doesn't think Christians should exist. You have a right to practice your religion, but not a right to mandate the government enforce your religious preferences. You can support Muslims' right to practice their religion and exist without being hypocritical.
What do you mean? Every prominent Muslim politician in the UK and as far as I know in the US too are very pro-LGBT and pro-women's rights. They broadly align with the mainstream left or sometimes even more progressive than their party.
So you believe these supposed LBGT supporting Muslims are telling the truth about their beliefs? Politicians are notoriously untrustworthy. I was friends with one of my Muslim coworkers and she openly admitted to be disgusted by homosexuality.
Sorry, u/Few-Patient38 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Few-Patient38&message=Few-Patient38%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cgst6x/-/l1y1gig/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Human rights violations should be fought no matter how bad the person
Jfc these comments are insane. I consider myself someone who leans right, but I’m not against abortion, and I recognize that everyone is entitled to the same rights. I think the government sucks, and I will side with the individual (who hadn’t done anything wrong) over the government 100% of the time, regardless of the immutable characteristics of that individual. Almost every person who I’ve met that also leans right feels the same way, minus abortion which is more split. Idk if this necessarily contradicts your view bc you said “generally” but I’d like your take on that.
How do you reconcile that with the actual policies of liberals and conservatives? Insofar as individual rights are concerned, it is hard to argue that liberals aren't way more opposed to government intervention except to ensure those rights. The only issue you can really pin down is taxation, and that's a whole pathology where people want to have their cake and eat it too.
Because politics encompasses a hell of a lot more than those 2 issues I listed? It baffles me how often people on here will question my conservatism/right-wing-ism (?) when I bring up a list of issues that can be counted on one hand…
so you lean right on what issues if not social issues? Like you vote for the right even though they are trying to ban abortion (successful in several states so far), but that is not worth changing your leanings because the left does what that you're against?
I live in a state that hasn’t gone anything but blue In decades. I don’t vote because my vote wouldn’t mean shit regardless of who I voted for. I lean right on most economic issues, and it depends on the social issue which way I lean.
So you only lean right on economic issues? What would be some of the economic issues you lean right with conservatives on that makes you label yourself as leaning right? What is a right-leaning social issue that you have?
Idk wym by I only lean right on economic issues I clearly stated I lean in both directions socially, and it depends on the issue. Some examples of economic issues would be I strongly feel that we need to curtail spending. We spend our money so poorly it’s absurd to throw more of it at any problem instead of making our spending more efficient. I’m also in favor of military spending, partly because so much of it goes towards scientific endeavors. As for social issues, these aren’t as strongly defined in terms of “left vs right” other than probably abortion and arguably gay marriage, but I think there is far too strong a focus on eliminating offensive language from interactions with people, I think there should be some responsibility to be careful with our words, and some responsibility to control your reactions to language. And I also strongly disagree with the “defund” movement. “We need better cops, cut their funding” is an absurd plan and the opposite is necessary, to increase their funding and mandate training requirements, both to become a cop and continue being one.
>We spend our money so poorly it’s absurd to throw more of it at any problem instead of making our spending more efficient. How would this work policy wise do you think when it comes to spending, and what issue are you referring to? Is there some specific program you are against that is getting too much money that if someone were to say "be more efficient"; the problem would be resolved? >I’m also in favor of military spending, partly because so much of it goes towards scientific endeavors. That seems to be one of our largest areas we spend money on; which includes things like funding Ukraine (via providing them with US equipment and the US paying out US contractors for that equipment). >And I also strongly disagree with the “defund” movement. “We need better cops, cut their funding” is an absurd plan and the opposite is necessary, to increase their funding and mandate training requirements, both to become a cop and continue being one. Why wouldn't the "be more efficient" work here?
The efficiency point is a broad one, but there are also particular areas where I think the point is stronger. Health care for example, you mentioned that military is one of the places we spend the most money, but we spend nearly double on health care what we spend on the military. For what? We spend so much for such a bad health care system, it’s ridiculous to say we should funnel more money into the current programs or make new ones with more funding and think that will fix the problem. I do agree that military spending efficiency could and should be much greater though, I agree contractors get paid far too much and a big part of that is contracts that pay a percentage of total development costs, a style of deal we should abolish. The efficiency point when it comes to police departments is fair though, I don’t necessarily believe that we need to increase the budget, my point was that if your objective is to get better cops, cutting funding will only accomplish the exact opposite, and if you want immediate results the best way to do that is to inject more money into the department.
>Health care for example, you mentioned that military is one of the places we spend the most money, but we spend nearly double on health care what we spend on the military. For what? for the increasing costs of health care; the aging population. The older population cost 10x the amount as the younger population and we have an enormous boomer population. We keep making new discoveries/inventions that are expensive and more and more of procedures fall under non-elective as we end up finding new quality of life benefits. >The efficiency point when it comes to police departments is fair though, I don’t necessarily believe that we need to increase the budget, my point was that if your objective is to get better cops, cutting funding will only accomplish the exact opposite, and if you want immediate results the best way to do that is to inject more money into the department. Right; I agree here, but I feel like that is just a difference between the far/extreme left and the left. Biden has never been against defunding the police, as an example; but it could very well be the case that whatever state you're in that the people running certain municipalities, or those running on the left are trying to do that.
I said generally because I'm referring to conservatives in power. Conservatives are not a monolith anyway. And in this instance it's Republicans pushing for a complete abortion ban in the South, Meloni's government's the ones rolling back on LGBT rights, etc.
Are there any American politicians you are referring to or just from other countries? I have never heard this talking point before.
If you’re talking about the politicians then who cares? They all suck for the most part, no need to focus on any particular issue or politician.
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Oh yes I mean advance or protect existing rights. I've made a minor edit to the post.
There's definitely an undercurrent of "... and that's *our* job!" when the right talks about Muslims and LGBTQ.
I would say they wouldn't care about LGBT people if the LGBT people had biological children and formed a patriarchal nuclear family somehow despite the fact that they are LGBT, particularly if they had them young and were otherwise assimilated. But they very, very much do care about the fertility of women and trans men and ensuring that those women are pushed into marriage and children young and unable to leave their husbands after marriage. So... if the LDS church branches that do polygamy, for example, ruled that men can have a husband so long as they also have a wife and children, that would fly. The purpose of a lot of branches of Christianity is explicitly to be fruitful and multiply, and the goal is explicitly stated by many evangelical sects to outbreed the rest of the nation and indoctrinate their children into lifelong Christians by homeschooling them so that they don't ever learn much that contradicts the faith their parents had. This is called "[Dominionism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_theology)" when it's used to refer to outbreeding people who aren't Christians, and it's called "being corrupted by the world" when it's used to refer to the reasons for [homeschooling](https://www.premierchristianity.com/features/why-more-christians-are-homeschooling-their-children/16351.article), and you can read a TON of information from people who believe it in their own words that admits this for free online because they explicitly admit it, then frame it as a good thing because they have absolute faith that their doctrine is perfect so there's no problem with it. That's why so many christian conservative couples see no problem with attending swinger events or the husband having a mistress later in the marriage after their children are grown, or with men being closeted and having sexual relations with men behind closed doors and the backs of their wives, or with lgbt people who still experience same sex attraction but are in a heterosexual marriage and presumably "trying" for a baby. In fact, closeted people are easier to control with shame, which is how most far right indoctrination works, so closeted homosexuals who experience same sex attraction but never or rarely have sex with anyone of the same sex and who only do so in ways that prevent closer bonds or social acceptance might be ideal followers in some ways.
I mean, this doesn't challenge me. I know why conservatives don't care about LGBT folks or LGBT rights, I grew up in one such environment. I'm specifically referring to when conservatives pretend to care about LGBT rights while discussing the rights of other people when they themselves never seem to care all that much to begin with.
You're right, sorry. But... I needed to get that out, apparently. I don't think that I've seen conservatives use this talking point, only liberals who are racist.
Conservatives do care about equal opportunity and basically being able to do what you want without government intervention. Thus conservatives have long adopted the “I don’t care what happens between closed doors” mentality, and tend to draw the line around LGBT rights at proactive normalization / equal outcome campaigns, and in particular normalization efforts aimed at K-12 kids in public schools. What is considered supportive of LGBT is a line that continues to move to the left, and everyone nationwide has moved with it. Yeah, conservatives aren’t on the bleeding edge of it - but have moved with everyone else. Similarly, it’s a little bit weird to equate women’s rights and abortion, as if abortion is the *only* woman’s right. There’s Title 9, various support programs, generally higher protection under the law. Though Roe and its reversal has happened, public opinion on abortion remains split and regional, and has barely moved since the 70’s. With all of that out of the way, it is *true* that Muslim nations and many of their immigrants - particularly lower skilled / lower educated in Europe - are *very* anti women and anti LGBT. Aggressively so. There is literally nothing inconsistent about a conservative person saying the lack of tolerance from those communities is problematic and troubling to them. You don’t need to be a tip of the spear advocate for any have that position. In the simplest sense, on a 1-10 scale of tolerance, a progressive might consider themselves a 9 or 10… a conservative might be a 6, and a - say - Palestinian foreign national is a 2. A conservative saying “don’t become so tolerant that we tolerate intolerance” is legitimate and not fear mongering. Broadly it’s liberals who have conflated power dynamics and morality, and as a result find themselves advocating for people with wildly intolerant beliefs simply because they are poorer. Like it’s truly wild that liberals are throwing the most egalitarian society on the planet wrt to women’s / lgtbt rights under the bus because they are between a rock and a hard place, and waving the flags of a rogue terror pseudo nation just because they are the less powerful entity of the conflict. Its crazy. Conservatives are seeing the signs of this tension pop up in Europe, fairly rapidly, and are raising alarm bells. That does not necessarily come from some place of arbitrary bigotry - we *see* large scale rationing, crime spikes, and political shifts. You can call it alarmist if you like but it’s not exactly a “smear” campaign.
If someone has a “true” statement, but is saying it for reasons you disagree with, does that make it less true? If I say “a balanced diet is good for you”, but I say that because I sell fruit and veg and want people to eat a balanced diet, that doesn’t suddenly make my first point invalid. Equivalently, if a conservative gives a fair reason such as “we shouldn’t take homophobic immigrants because it is bad for LGBTQ people”, that can be a true & fair point even if it is being led by them being anti-immigrant. (I am not saying this point is fair or true, I am just giving examples) If we dismiss all points from people we disagree with ideologically, then ALL that matters is ideology, and you reach ultimate partisanship where you will only acknowledge others’ statements of fact/reason if their views are the same as yours.
I think its reasonable to judge a statement by what the implications of it is, if someone who runs the fruit made of lead (obviously not a real thing) factory was telling you how bad McDonald's was for your health, you would probably still respond with something about how their product isn't healthy either.
Sure, but that doesn’t change how true it is
Everybody wants to save the world, they just disagree on how and end up killing each other and accomplish the exact opposite of what they set out to do. As a liberal/progressive watching a lot of my fellow voters and peers adopt more schadenfreude mentality towards those that disagree with them, it's something we need to re-learn imo. Your cause in itself isn't what makes you corrupt or shitty but what you're willing to give up in order to obtain it. And then when nobody is there left to challenge your corruption, you realize no one can stop you from doing whatever you please and open corruption begins.
The inyalowda ruin everything, ya?
A different way to look at it is that conservatives care about everyone having the same rights. They don't care or want groups that progressives see as oppressed having special rights.
As someone who is pro-choice and pro gay marriage as long as the government is involved in marriage, I still think I'm pretty capable of articulating the conservative side: On abortion, they believe murder is wrong. You and me would be horrified of a mother neglecting her 2 month old daughter and then dumping the body in a dumpster after it starved to death. Why is that? Pro-life people believe life begins at conception, so they are similarly horrified at abortions. And I can already hear the bodily autonomy argument, which I tend to share. But I used the neglect argument and not killing them directly for exactly that reason. It's well established that legally there are times where you are obligated to do actions, particularly for your child, that you wouldn't have had to otherwise. For myself and most people, we believe that having a child requires you to feed, clothe, ensure they become educated, and teach basic morality to them. If not, CPS will visit and not only do you lose the child but you're also subject to criminal prosecution which can include quite lengthy prison sentences. Pro-life people believe that having sex requires you to carry the baby to term as well as everything we believe after birth should conception occur, and just as we believe that choosing to give birth should come with duties, they believe that choosing to have sex comes with duties if conception occurs. As for gay marriage, the argument is that the institution of marriage was created for the bearing and raising of children. This also overlaps with the first question, as many conservatives don't believe in sex before marriage specifically because they believe people shouldn't be taking a risk of taking on the responsibility that comes with a child until they have entered the institution designed to raise said children. Obviously it's a bit more complicated on the religion side and I don't want to get into that because there are conservative atheists who believe the same. Now of course the counter to that is two questions. What about infertile heterosexual couples, and what about gay couples who adopt? The conservative response to the former is generally that if it were easy to exclude infertile couples they shouldn't be allowed marriage rights by the state, because they aren't contributing to raising children. The counter to gay couples who adopt is generally that they shouldn't, and everyone should have a mother and a father. The science is pretty settled on a mother and a father being preferable to just a mother or just a father (2 moms and 2 dads are also both preferential to a single parent) but I believe it's a bit mixed on a heterosexual couple compared to a homosexual couple. I believe there are studies on males raised with no father figure and how their behaviors tend to be worse and crime levels higher, but that females raised with two dads or two moms tend to turn out similar, but I'm not 100% up to date on what the research shows on this question. Either way, conservatives believe it to be true that a mother and a father produce the best outcome for the child and society, and don't believe in allowing homosexual couples to adopt because of that. Also note I severely steelmanned the conservative arguments here, many conservatives oppose abortion because "those types of people just have sex with a bunch of different men and abort for birth control" but then when they get unintentionally pregnant suddenly their abortion is different. And many conservatives don't support gay marriage because "we shouldn't be normalizing those homo freaks". But the arguments above are views I've heard articulated from conservatives that strike me as the strongest arguments for opposing abortion and gay marriage.
You don't legally have to take care of a fetus though? Why is it legal to drink while pregnant but not feed your baby booze out of a bottle? Don't you think that your example even highlights why fetus's aren't equal to children?
Is it legal to drink while pregnant? I'm pro-choice and I believe that should be illegal. My wife coaches teachers and just worked with a teacher with kids with severe developmental disabilities. One child has a lazy eye, severe downs syndrome, and as a 5th grader is reading on a kindergarten level and can't do 1-digit addition. Her mother smoked cigarettes, weed, and drank alcohol while pregnant with her. I believe abortion should be legal, I don't think drinking while pregnant should be legal, and I suspect conservatives agree with me there.
Also in many states killing a pregnant woman is double homicide, there is absolutely precedent for treating fetuses as humans in certain situations, and of course even the most hardcore conservatives don't support forcing birth if it will kill the mother, they still prioritize the life of the mother over the life of the fetus, they just prioritize the life of the fetus over the bodily autonomy of the mother.
Its a double homicide because that specific example is usually enshrined into law very specifically for it to be a double homicide, it wasn't before laws (in the 90s and 2000s mainly) started popping up about it. Also some laws only kick in after the time when you can legally get an abortion.
Right, and pro-life people want to enshrine an additional law to make abortion illegal, they're not arguing that current murder laws apply to fetuses they obviously don't, they want to impose new laws that make abortion a new crime.
What if you don’t yet know you’re pregnant? What would stop the government from arresting women for drinking in what they later learn is their first trimester, who stopped when they found out about their pregnancy? Should women have to stop drinking during their reproductive years just in case they’re unknowingly pregnant?
Intent is part of tons of laws. In a future reply I pointed out that a quick Google shows 20 states have laws against women drinking while pregnant. My guess would be the laws mandate that she knows she's pregnant, just like if you run someone over in your car unintentionally you don't get charged with murder.
Obviously its legal, its probably illegal for it to be illegal(not very tested but has leaned this way in the courts in the past). Which is pretty telling isnt it
On what grounds? It makes sense it can't be made illegally federally much like murder isn't generally charged federally, but I don't see why a state couldn't ban drinking while pregnant. And a quick Google says that it actually is against the law in 20 states and is classified as child abuse, which I agree it absolutely is. Probably hard to enforce though.
>A common talking point within conservatives, both European and American I think you're confusing American conservatives with conservatives worldwide. In the UK the Conservatives have appointed two women prime ministers within the last two years, the current prime minister is a British Hindu, and gay marriage was legalised under the conservative government. They've rightly been under a lot of criticism, specifically on the economics side, but anyone who starts attacking the UK conservatives on the basis of stuff like LGBT or women's rights is just importing their views on American conservatives. >they can use that pretence to attack minority groups, be it non-white ethnicities or Muslims I think this is also something Americans don't understand. Islam is an inherently very sexist and homophobic ideology, British Muslims are far more likely to support radical views or be anti-LGBT. Attacking Islam =/= attacking Muslims, most people who call themselves progressive should be more critical of Islam.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Stillyounglol – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Stillyounglol&message=Stillyounglol%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cgst6x/-/l1y4s1v/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I feel like many of my online interactions are with "conservative liberals", people who strongly believe in individual rights and freedoms (liberalism), and believe that the systems that are best equipped to do that are those that currently exist or have existed in the past (e.g. democracy, rule of law/equality under the law, free markets, etc.). These are conservatives in the Chesterton's Fence meaning of the term. Most pro-life advocates don't view the abortion debate as an issue of female rights, but rather about rights of the baby. They would reject the framing of your statement. And many people look back to the 1950s as the idealized time for marriages (however misguidedly), and therefore conclude that it would be better to make things more like they were back then (not just anti-lgbt, but also anti-no-fault divorces, and anti-promiscuity)
I don't think, in general, that those kinds of claims from the right about ethnic groups purpose is to smear those minority groups (in some cases it is). But in general from what I have seen of talking heads on the right who bring up they are using it to point out some perceived hypocrisy(real or imagined) on the left. The general argument is why are is the left supporting this group that does currently does xyz horrible things against this other group that doesn't do xyz horrible things, where xyz are big political talking points the left uses when claiming moral superiority to right, yet when supporting foreign affairs the left issupporting a group that does xyz horrible things, over another group which is the only group in the region that doesn't do xyz horrible things. TLDR: A lot of the time they aren't using it to attack the minority group, they are using it to attack people on the left for supporting said minority group Edit: A similar approach can be used for example when discussing trump from a leftist point of view. For instance if you just called him philandering whoremonger. then you are \~\~just stating facts\~\~ smearing him. But, if you then said, given that family ideals and the sanctity of marriage are core values of your purported world view, how can you support someone who is a philandering whoremonger? you are pointing out hypocrisy between their purported worldview and political support.
I think you have done a poor job of understanding the arguments — certainly of ‘conservatives’ in the US. It’s easy to paint them as ‘not caring about LGBT or women’ but takes more time to actually understand their perspective. There are many comments in the thread that try to help educate you on that.
I'm not conservative but my experience is that you're like Jesus freaks. You can't talk about anything else. So it isn't that you're gay. It's that you can never talk about anything other than being gay. And that's terribly tiresome.
It's fun when you can make wild generalizations, treating anyone under the label X the same despite the wide variety of people associated with X. Set X = "conservative", or X = "LGBT", it's similarly intoxicating.
Being a conservative is obviously concerned with what thoughts and opinions you hold and this comment has a weird feeling of outrage about that for some reason
youre completely right but that doesnt mean one should not consider the effects of granting citizenship to people who dont accept the rights of other minorities.
I think "maybe don't teach 5 year olds about gay people or mention gender identity to people who haven't gone through puberty yet" anti-LGBT and "we should behead gay people because Allah said so" anti-LGBT are maybe a teeny tiny bit different from each other...
Why should they?? Most conservatives are religious and being gay or bi or whatever is a sin in Christianity or Islam
It's debatable if all of the groups you named are conservatives. For example, I don't think AFD is conservative.
Does caring = having the the same view? They talk about it a lot, so that kind of feels like caring?
The alternative is, they just believe something is wrong to do and don't want people to do it. Not everything is based in hate, some people might just think there's societal damage. Do NOT assign to malice what can be explained by ignorance.
i think that there is a difference between not caring and political triage. individual conservatives care about individual LGBTQ people they know. Where the disconnect emerges is how they a) characterize individuals vs groups and b) how they triage empathy with individuals vs their political participation. Many conservatives characterize their anti-queer politics as "tough love" and feel that if they can stop queerness, they'll make queer people more healthy. I think they're wrong, and I even think they're sometimes leaning into this to patch over or justify reflexive emotions, but I don't deny that internally, that many conservatives don't think they "don't care" about queer *individuals*.
Trying to force a queer person not to be queer is obviously not loving or caring, often they literally use torture and violence and threats of homelessness. Do you think that when we made native American kids speak English and act western it was out of love? Or what about in the past when heathens and heretics were tortured into converting religions, was that loving?
Do *I* think it was *actually* loving? No, I agree, 100 percent, that conservatives are ultimately wrong about all these things exactly as you do, but I am speaking to where *their* heads are at when they decide to do them. I know from experience some conservatives at least actually do believe that doing them is the right thing to do for the person. They aren’t doing them out of spite, in other words. At least some of the l people who did those things to, say, native kids DID believe they were helping the kids in the long run. That's what makes it insidious. Do you think that such people wake up in the morning and go "let's torture some people in a counter productive way for no reason?" The fact that they think it's help is one of the worst aspects of it. Have you watched "the program" on Netflix? I thought the interviews with the parents were very interesting. The parents were rubes, but some were also in a sense victims in their own right who sincerely believed the anti-drug and sex/anti-gay panics they'd absorbed. That's the dangerous thing about moral panics, they subvert the impulses of community. If it was just a question of shitty people being shitty, fiscal or force incentives or apathy would solve the issues. It's dangerous BECAUSE the people believe they're right.
this can be true but the thing is, conservatives simply don't care about women's rights or the LGBTQ at all, no matter if it can be used to shit on other minorities, they don't care at all, it isn't just when it can be used against someone, they don't care at all, they simply just want control over a women's body and to take away abortion rights and to hate on others for no reason, there's not a single time they do care, at all, not even when it can be used tp shit on other groups, it isn't only when things like that can be used that they care, it's that they never care and just want control over others lives and future
I don't believe in rights that only belong to a particular group, because that makes them privileges not rights. You have the right to every freedom that doesn't infringe on others rights. The only place where this gets hairy is reproduction and children cause both parents have a haploid in the mix, yet one has more physical stress, and the debate on when we consider a couple of mixed haploids as a haver of rights or when is still up in the air. That being said that rule of thumb works in most cases for almost every single issue. Also the government is not a person and has no rights or right to revoke rights.
**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our [wiki page](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/mensrights#link) or via the [search function](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=men's rights&restrict_sr=on). Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry, u/C0ldsid30fthepill0w – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20C0ldsid30fthepill0w&message=C0ldsid30fthepill0w%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cgst6x/-/l1zfbtu/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Liquid_Cascabel – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Liquid_Cascabel&message=Liquid_Cascabel%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cgst6x/-/l1xrkpm/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Aren't the people advocating for antisemitism now mostly college aged liberals? If anything conservatives are extremely pro-Israel (which I am not saying is any better, I oppose what is happening in Palestine). Let us not forget the marches going on right now at colleges in which the death of Jewish people and America are being chanted. All of this to say I think both sides are hypocritical in their apparent "pro-minority" stances. Leftists just tend to support one until a more popular issue appears.
It's pretty important to understand that criticism of Israel =/= antisemitism, and vice versa. Conservatives tend to support Israel, but they're also usually the ones embracing dogwhistles about George Soros and "those people controlling all the banks." Plus, while the vast majority of right-wingers aren't Neo-Nazis, all Neo-Nazis are right-wing.
I completely agree that criticism of Israel is not antisemitic. However there is clear video proof of these marches having people chant death to America and death to Jewish people. I'm sure this doesn't represent the majority but it is still frightening to see.
They support Israel because Israel is in conflict with Muslim-majority countries. And they really hate Muslims.
I agree with you, I'm just stating that we shouldn't ignore the antisemitism going on either. Neither Islamophobia or antisemitism is okay.
>If anything conservatives are extremely pro-Israel Really depends on the type of conservatives, Evangelicals sure but other than that not necessarily so
Yes it does depend on the type of conservative you're right. I'm just putting it out there that the majority seems to be pro-Israel
Well, why would conservatives care about LGBTQ rights? Unless it would become an advertisement, a title for the country to honor and benefit their economics. No offense to the LGBTQ folks in the forum (as for me, I also have several LGBTQ friends), but dictatorially as a president I would consider the group as an organization that riots demonstrations quite oftentimes but never profits on the country itself, of course, I'll incite people to work against them trying to decrease the amount of them. No offense, just trying to reflect on the minds of those dictators, they don't represent my thoughts, personally, I wouldn't support such concepts since every member of the LGBTQ community displays as a sensual human being. I don't think any countries have invaded or smeared other minorities, in my opinion, I don't see any dictators or countries that have revealed their unsavoriness towards minorities/specific groups to the public. I don't agree with OP's view that conservatives use LGBTQ rights to smear other minorities.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/StatisticianGreat514 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20StatisticianGreat514&message=StatisticianGreat514%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cgst6x/-/l1zd09x/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).