I am anti abortion because of my religious beliefs, not because I want to deprive women of bodily autonomy so no it isn't political for me. Maybe for you it is.
And the fact that tech platforms censor the right is a fact, it may be a right wing talking point but that doesn't negate it being factual just because it displeases some people on the left when they hear it. Doesn't make it inherently political for me to agree with that, I'm just agreeing with facts. People used to do that before everyone became so polarized.
You're not wrong, but the issue is way overblown. The far left is censored just as much or more as the far right, but have much less mainstream political support in the strongly anti-socialist US. Censorship and free speech are the issue far more than political persecution of one side or another. Allowing the debate to be turned into a neolib vs neocon political battle rather than a matter of fundamental rights and Constitutional law is a mistake.
I think you’re (plural) using and understanding the word “politics” in slightly different ways. As long as you believe that others should follow the rules you follow, it’s politics*. Even if your decision is motivated by religion, it’s still political in practice.
Nothing wrong with that. Nowadays saying that something or someone is political is automatically understood as an expression of identity/belonging, or placing someone or one at o other side of sort of a spectrum. But that’s not what the term politics means.
* gross oversimplification, I know, just trying to keep it brief
I've always actually disliked the term "pro-life" as it felt misleading to me when the debate is over abortion rights specifically and not life as a whole
That makes a lot of sense with regards to anti-abortion being a personal preference rather a stance on what others should do. I can't quite wrap my head around how "pro-choice" doesn't also fall into the trap of being a statement of personal preference, but that probably gets too nitpicky about symantics to be important
I strongly support everyone's right to choose though. Ironically that landed me on the other side of the fence during Covid from most that are pro-choice with regards to abortions but very much against the right to make other medical choices.
Proof?
"The right" is generally defined as policital views focusing on individual rights. Tech platforms were blatantly censoring discussion that they believed could lead to vaccine hesitancy and individuals making their own decision. They censored topics related to alternative treatments and palliative care. The motivation was clearly to push individuals to go along with the recommendations from government authorities at the expense of individual rights, freedoms, and choice.
We know that "The Twitter Files" were a completely one-sided effort to only release information on one political side. Hell, we even have evidence of the Trump White House asking Twitter to take down posts that make fun of Trump. The partisan nature of the release should not just put it into question, but (in my opinion) serves as direct evidence that the right is treated preferentially. If there really was a preference for the left, they would have shown just how few requests the right made, and just how few leftists were banned. But all of this information is kept secret, and it's kept this way for a reason.
I purposely left the question open with regards to the left being censored. I expect it does happen and examples could be found - I simply don't have proof handy, possibly because as you said the Twitter Files seem to have been one side.
The absence of evidence shoeing censorship of the left has no bearing on whether there is evidence that the right was being censored.
No, we do not agree. A lot of what the right calls "censoring" is nothing more than "making the platform a space normal people want to participate in". By their conflation of very normal practices (e.g. banning people for racist language, or purposeful misgendering) with censorship I've stopped giving them any benefit of the doubt.
You're free to show scientific assessments of censorship of the right, but until then it's nothing more than the usual propaganda for me.
How are you defining normal here?
Discussion of vaccine efficacy, test validity during vaccine trials, alternative medical treatments, and even the basic fundamental purpose of informed consent were all being censored. Those topics broadly fit on the right in general, with a focus on individual freedom, and aren't specific to the far right.
Are you arguing that topics relate to a general opinion of individual vs collective views, broadly held by roughly half our population, aren't normal and should be isolated and silenced?
Are you further arguing that its right for minority views to be thrown out, silenced, and those individuals stripped of their right to free speech? If so, where is that line drawn when compared to other political battles fought by the left to protect and shine a light on opinions of other minority groups?
You asked for proof and there's plenty out there. Claiming now that the proof doesn't count because it doesn't also prove the negative is asinine. Had you asked for proof that only one side was being censored that'd be a whole different question but you simply asked for proof that the right was being censored.
Generally speaking, if you can't provide scientific evidence for something, it's not worth thinking about. Even if I were to agree that censorship will not be scientifically studied by scientists (which I do not) any individual could still try to follow the scientific method to gather evidence of such censorship. I have not seen such evidence, and every time I've previously tried to follow "plenty of evidence out there" it has not convinced me.
Ask yourself: why not follow the scientific method, publish clear data etc.? I think this is not done because it would show that such censorship doesn't exist beyond what is usually expected of social media. If you have a different reason (or even data?) feel free to show it!
I've told you my terms, and you're not going to convince me to move off my standards. Either engage on those terms, or please just save both of us the time and don't engage.
Or what, you shouldn’t be eating pigs because I’m Muslim or what?
Religion is not really relevant here. If the fetus is a person then aborting them is denying other people's freedom.
The question of when along the path of human development one becomes a person is not inherently a religious question.
I know many atheists for example who are fine with banning abortions of healthy fetuses that are moments away from birth unless there is something about the birth that would put the mother at unusual risk. That's because they can't find a way to count a newborn baby as a person but exclude a soon to be born fetus because nothing changes between those two times in the things that they consider relevant for determining personhood.
Even if it is a person, you completely fail to take into account the mother as a living human being.
Should we save someone in need of a kidney by forcing someone else to give up one of theirs? Not even another person’s life worth more than forcing away the freedom to bodily autonomy - and pregnancy does take an insanely huge toll on the women’s body, so she should be the only arbiter in deciding what she does with it. And “she chose to have sex” is not a valid argument, it is basic human need, and even with protection it is not 100% safe, shit happens.
Of course no sane person talks about aborting in like the 8th months or so, but early enough it is absolutely not a huge deal, especially that not doing so would just break two people - a women that didn’t want to become one, and an unloved child.. who does it benefit?
Last I checked the mother chose to engage in an activity she knew could result in a baby. Not sure why she is obviated from the need for personal responsibility for her decisions. Nor how you justify that kind of callous avoidance of personal responsibility; causing the death of another?
Everyone always wants to avoid personal responsibility.
The point is that if the fetus has reached personhood stage then it becomes a matter of dealing with a conflict of freedoms between two people. Too often both sides in abortion debates fail to realize this.
> Of course no sane person talks about aborting in like the 8th months or so
Ahh, but note that all your bodily autonomy arguments apply just as well at 8 months as they do at 3 months, maybe even more so as the fetus is having a bigger impact on the woman's body at that point.
Do we consider ejaculation murder too? They survive on their own, and can navigate their way to an egg... clearly they are from a human, living, and independent:)
The reason I'm asking is pretty simple - I believe that many, many people are simply "for births", and politicians capitalize on that. They won't go against IVF since it leads to more births, but they go against abortions because they lead to fewer. Do you have any evidence going against this?