Ask Lemmy

26890 readers

2399 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]

Rules: (interactive)

1) Be nice and; have fun

Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them

2) All posts must end with a '?'

This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?

3) No spam

Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].

5) This is not a support community.

It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

215

Non-religious Republicans of Lemmy, how do you reconcile your non-religious convictions with a party that bases a lot of its policies on religion? (lemm.ee)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

244 comments fedilink hide all child comments

E.g. abortion rights, anti-LGBTQ, contempt for atheism, Christian nationalism, etc.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] [email protected] -7 points 11 months ago (11 children)

Me neither, I was talking about historical precedent, not some hard and fast rule of the universe.

Well that's the thing, "historical precedent" means that this has actually demonstrably happened before, in which case there should be data on it. That's why I asked for proof. Which I understand you're most likely not going to be able to provide, since there obviously can't be any reliable data on the amount of clandestine abortions that happened before it was legalized.

First of all, with the "death or injury" part of this, I don't see why this is preferable. Seems like threatening their lives and happiness in the interest of forcing births.

I mean, I'm not a woman, but if I were, and I was given the choice between having an illegal procedure that had a good chance of injury or death (and no possible recourse), and carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term, I think I would choose the latter, because it seems a lot safer, no matter how inconvenient.

This is just a piece of that bullshit take that argues women will learn to love their future babies if they are just forced to carry them long enough that abortions are more difficult and less legally accessable. Nah

Well, in the absence of any hard data, I find that idea more convincing than the opposite, but again, I'll admit that I'm not a woman. But unless you are, you're likely no more of an expert on this than I am. And even if you are AND have gone through all this, you'd just be a single data point of anecdotal evidence, which would not be enough to convince me.

Good thing I wasn't claiming that then. I'm saying the amount prevented would be negligible, not magically impossibly zero. It would likely be a small amount, and utterly overshadowed by the negative effects of banning abortions.

You realize that for statistical purposes, "zero" and "negligible" are absolutely identical, right? It's called a null hypothesis, look it up.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (10 children)

You said this:

Perhaps, but it will likely at least severely reduce it.

I rejected that. I didn't say "there would be the same amount of abortions no matter the law" or anything like you seem to think. I don't think it would be "severely" reduced, and the negatives are extreme to the point of being unacceptable.

As for the data you want me to provide, I refer to the other things said. Unless you agree to also put in the effort to provide data to support your argument, I'm not going to put in all that effort for a random internet convo. Since you made the first claim (at least that I interacted with) ("Perhaps, but it will likely at least severely reduce it"), you can go first.

To be blunt I find the behaviour of demanding rigorous sources and academic honesty in internet arguments obnoxious and hypocritical. Very few people read them, they just want them as stamps of approval. And most conversations I see where someone is demanding sources, they are who should be logically providing sources to the conversation. It is just a silly part of internet culture dancing around pretending to be intellectualism. On a personal level I do love sources though, when they get posted. Not just for accuracy, I find them fun to read.

[+] [email protected] -8 points 11 months ago (9 children)

Okay, well I don't care enough about winning arguments on the Internet in order to write a whole research paper right now, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and call it a draw.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

That is exactly my point. Glad you could see it my way.

Except for the draw part. This wasn't a competition, and in the nicest way possible, I'll just walk away from this thinking you are fully incorrect, and I assume you will do the same about me. "Agree to disagree" is more for people who actually know each other. Bye stranger!

load more comments (7 replies)