Your comment implies that people take insult when someone calls them out for supporting a platform that - just to take one example - decides it’s proper to prosecute victims of crime because they also think the government should have jurisdiction over woman’s body and a say in their health and wellbeing.

Is them taking umbrage to valid crisis the real issue here?

[–] mcc@sh.itjust.works -3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You support a platform for many different reasons. For example you really want small government, so what choice do you have? And how do you know that a republican definitely is a pro-lifer? And if he is a prolifer, how do you know he believes government should control woman? You can't just paint them all as evil as you imagined. What you imagined is not your neighbor.

[–] g0nz0li0@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

You can’t just paint them all as evil as you imagine

Perfectly illustrates my point. I didn’t paint them as evil, I just criticised them. Big difference, which you seem unable to draw.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with me saying “I get you have ideological views, but supporting a party that hurts people to win culture wars is not something I am not cool with”. Branding that as insulting or hateful is just attempting to dodging accountability by disingenuously claiming victim status.

Party allegiance aside, it’s unreasonable and hypocritical for anyone to support a platform with an agenda that will directly and adversely impacts broad swathes of society with an expectation that they will not be directly or adversely impacted by their actions and decisions (which in this case is something as innocuous as simply drawing criticism).

[–] Stumblinbear@pawb.social -4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This belief depends entirely on the state. Other red states don't give a shit. Kansas and Florida for example haven't restricted it at all.

[–] g0nz0li0@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Not familiar with those states but after a quick search:

Florida has an an abortion plan that permits prosecution of a women as a third degree felony in some circumstances.

Kansas prohibits abortions after 22 weeks and “a woman who seeks an abortion will be given state-mandated propaganda designed to change her mind. She will then have to look at an ultrasound image, wait 24 hours and pay for the procedure out of her own pocket.”

“Not as bad” isn’t really a W.

[–] Stumblinbear@pawb.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Every country limits abortion to some extent. The UK limits it at 24 unless medically necessary. Denmark is at 12 weeks.

The US was unique in that you weren't permitted to limit it at all due to the supreme court decision.

Some limitations are fine, imo.

[–] g0nz0li0@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Wrong again:

During the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court ruled that a state government could place no restrictions on women's ability to choose to abort pregnancies other than imposing minimal medical safeguards, such as requiring abortions to be performed by licensed physicians.[7] From the second trimester on, the Court ruled that evidence of increasing risks to the mother's health gave states a compelling interest that allowed them to enact medical regulations on abortion procedures so long as they were reasonable and "narrowly tailored" to protecting mothers' health.[7] From the beginning of the third trimester on—the point at which a fetus became viable under the medical technology available in the early 1970s—the Court ruled that a state's interest in protecting prenatal life became so compelling that it could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health

[–] ErevanDB@lemmy.zip -5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

In the argument you call out, wasn't the republican side pushing the decision of abortion legality to state level, putting it more in the hands of the people?

Edit: should clarify, I'm unaffiliated, and just looking for answers.

[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

It used to be up to the individual. The Republicans took it out of the hands of the people.

[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago

Yeah they pushed it for state level and when they realized most people even in Republican states didn't support the ban they went straight to trying to push it federally.

It's all a grift for the sake of control and power. Acting like it's anything less when the mask has been removed makes you complicit which is why I say fuck all republicans.

[–] g0nz0li0@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Is the Republicans platform not anti-abortion?

[–] kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

It is, and I don't know how anyone could disagree with you on that.

We bash the Confederacy for using "states rights" to try and justify slavery. We should bash Republicans for using the same tactics.