I agree with this broadly but I actually disagree with this point for this specific poster. “These people” is a phrase referring distinctly to the national right to life organization, whose goal is in fact to make abortion illegal nationwide. In this case, that organization is about as monolithic an enemy of pro choice people as possible.

(Edited to add: there is a separate frustration of the poster of people claiming that diverting reproductive justice to state determination is reasonable. The poster is saying they are frustrated with that statement because it ignore the above fact. I also don’t think this is painting anyone with a broad brush… it is painting specific people’s specific argument as being myopic.)

> If we continue to try and paint each other group as a monolithic enemy other division will continue to rise and polarization will increase and the effects will be devestating.

Then perhaps the other group should not have monolithically spent decades fighting against and removing human rights from people I care about.

The effects are already devastating. From the point of view of a women unable to access medical services due to these laws it is literally a matter of life and death right now.

So you can worry or you can act.

To me, the bounty hunter law is reprehensible, but not as much as the motivation behind it. Those with that motivation can be treated as a single group.

And to be frank, I don't care if they're unhappy to be lumped together. Lie with dogs and all that.

Should every movement be painted with the same brush as the worst people in the movement?

Conversely, should every movement be painted with the brush of their best people?

This is a bit... difficult to take seriously. They are being painted by the general actions at large that they are causing. If you want them to be seen in their best light, try to get their best light into the spotlight.

Frankly I don’t think that the problem is that individuals who are part of the pro life movement are lumped in with the worst in the group. Rather, many who hold even less extreme pro life positions are still across the line of what others deem acceptable.

If they don't strongly disavow the worst people in the movement, yes.

I'm painting the group with the same brush as their best, those that "merely" want to shame people for seeking abortions.

But opposing abortion and not caring about the consequences for women and families IS appalling.

Edit: I misread the parent quote.

> largely pulled back because it's constitutional basis was too weak to defend in the Supreme Court

"large pulled back" belies the fact that the motives are ulterior.

> consequences are largely left up to the people who choose to use those things

In the case of banning abortion, you're denying choice and autonomy. You're saying a woman HAS to give birth even if it wasn't her choice. Even if she was raped. Even if she's 10 years old.

If you don't find that stance appalling, I don't know what to say.

Damaging oneself e.g. by reckless consumption of substances is one thing.

Forcing a birth of a badly unwanted human being, who is going to suffer through life being badly unwanted, is a rather different thing.

And forcing a woman to keep carrying a pregnancy which is dangerous to her life (and thus to the prospective baby's life anyway) is not just indifference, it's a direct opposite of care.

> You're conflating a lot of things here, none of which are really related.

Speaking of things that aren't related. I don't see how those things being legal is even somewhat related to making abortion illegal or making it legal to bounty hunt women. You're going to have to explain that connection to me a bit more.

I'm speaking about groups like the NRLC and the Federalist Society who have been working towards this goal for decades. I'm sure some conservatives are opposed to the extremity of what's being proposed, but if they continue to vote Republican I'm not sure what good that does anyone.

See here's the problem that is plaguaging the discourse right now, instead of having a rational discussion the argument has devolved to people's emotions overruling everything.

I understand this is an emotional issue but until everyone can agree to at least have a discussion about this without getting overemotional we can't have any discussion or compromise only polarization and that eventually leads to shooting and a civil war.

I mean my own sister told me she hopes my 2 year old daughter gets raped because of my position on this issue. Doesn't that strike anyone else as something that would deplorable under other circumstances but we excuse it right now because we believe the cause is righteous?

This is how fanatics and extremists are made.

> we can't have any discussion or compromise only polarization and that eventually leads to shooting and a civil war.

Some things are not compromise-able.

> I mean my own sister told me she hopes my 2 year old daughter gets raped because of my position on this issue. Doesn't that strike anyone else as something that would deplorable under other circumstances but we excuse it right now because we believe the cause is righteous?

Source that “we” excuse wishing harm on another person for no reason, and an innocent toddler at that? It is so deplorable that I would need considerable proof to believe it even occurred, especially from an aunt to a niece.

> If you oppose abortion, you're the enemy.

I don't know about that; I think it is possible to oppose abortion, but not seek to do so via legal remedies. Like opposing drinking or smoking, or game microtransactions, or IoT devices.

In the context of this discussion, I think they meant “oppose access to abortion for those who want/need it”.

I think that want/need is doing a lot of work here.

One can be in favor of abortions for medical necessity or when the choice to get pregnant was not consensual while still being wildly opposed to abortions for convenience reasons.

How big must the government be to investigate every miscarriage to see whether or not it was deliberate and for medical necessity, or done because the pregnancy was the result of rape? We're talking about hiring a lot of medical professionals and expanding our already large tracking apparatuses.

If we're not talking about expanding government along these lines then maybe we should just leave the choice to the people immediately involved.

I've known women who have had miscarriages, and I've known women who for various reasons have had to terminate their pregnancies. Abortion is only "convenient" compared to being stuck raising a kid you aren't ready and willing to raise, giving birth to a kid that's going to have special needs because of genetic defects, or trying to carry a pregnancy to term that's likely to kill you.

I'm pro-choice but I disagree with your comment. There is an enormous moral gulf between an abortion early into pregnancy and abortion late into pregnancy.

There absolutely are misogynists and hypocrites among the pro-life/anti-choice movement, but not everyone in that movement is at the extreme. Those of us who want abortion to be legal nationwide must acknowledge the ethical complexity of terminating an unwanted pregnancy.

> There is an enormous moral gulf between an abortion early into pregnancy and abortion late into pregnancy.

According to your morals, perhaps. But I don't share your morals. As far as I'm concerned, if it can't breathe on its own it's not a baby. Likewise if it hasn't been gestated long enough that it can be cared for in the NICU.

We tried to be reasonable and limit abortion access to the end of the second trimester, but that wasn't good enough for some people. No, some of these assholes want to ban abortion after six weeks when some women can go that long before even realizing they're pregnant.

I'm sick of "acknowledging the ethical complexity". Our opposition doesn't, and that's why they keep kicking our fucking asses.

https://www.marchofdimes.org/complications/premature-babies....

Given the way "start of pregnancy" is calculated in this country, my understanding is that most women would struggle to be able to get an abortion before six weeks.

When you miss your period, and take a pregnancy test, the "start of pregnancy" is apparently considered to have been the start of your last period. That means that at the earliest time you could be generally expected to find out you're pregnant, you are considered to have been pregnant for 4-5 weeks.

Then, of course, you'll need to make a decision about what to do about it, contact a doctor, and have a procedure scheduled...and in states with restrictive abortion laws, you can bet that that's going to be more difficult and time-consuming than it needs to be.

The cruelty of it all is the point.