Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
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.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Because it conflicts with their personal identity. If I point out being “pro-life” while also denying people’s right to health care for that life is hypocritical, I’m calling you a hypocrite from your perspective.
I can't help myself but to comment on this though it gets a little off-topic.
I think the "pro-life vs healthcare" example can be a little more complicated.
If someone sees abortion as equivalent to murder (because they believe life begins at conception), their opposition is based on a direct moral prohibition - being against killing - rather than a broader stance on care or social services.
That doesn't mean there aren’t inconsistencies elsewhere, but the perceived contradiction might not be quite as direct from their point of view as it sounds.
They don't believe that. They think they believe that, but they don't. The frozen embryo in the fire question proves this. The fact that they aren't actively killing abortion doctors proves this.
I get where you're coming from, but I think this is actually a good example of what I was trying to get at in my original post.
Assuming people don't really believe what they say - just because they don't act exactly how we might expect - feels like another form of refusing to give an inch.
If someone says they believe life begins at conception, I take that at face value unless there’s clear evidence otherwise - I’m not a mind reader after all. And not resorting to violence (like killing doctors) is actually consistent with believing killing is wrong, not evidence that they don’t believe it.
People can be inconsistent without being dishonest. We're all a bit messy like that.
I'm arguing that there IS clear evidence otherwise. The fact that they're not acting in a way that is consistent with the belief that life begins at conception is a problem. And saying that they don't understand their own belief is much nicer than saying that they're horrible people who let death happen when they could have stopped it.
And I think the point of these discussions is to exactly fix your final point. To iron out the inconsistencies and find the truth.