[ilikecakeandpie]

> If your political beliefs prevent you from associating with somebody because you have labeled them so firmly as to write them off entirely as a person, you have jumped the shark and become the problem.

If someone is having their bodily autonomy threatened by legislation pushed and passed by a political party and a choice for potential partner actively supports and votes for those people to gain or retain power, it's not an irrational decision to decide they're probably not compatible.

[claytongulick]

I feel like your comment supports the parent's point.

Lack of tolerance is the issue.

Which is ironic, given that traditionally the left has been known as being much more tolerant than the right.

I don't see that anymore, online or with the people I know personally.

My family has split over it. My brother refuses to ever speak to my father again because he believes my father voted for Trump.

The excuses I hear are similar to your comment, but mostly boil down to:

1) take a wedge issue

2) build a strawman around it and a dramatic case that doesn't reflect reality

3) somehow make it personal and claim victimhood

4) use that victim status to demonize the "attacker"

[brightball]

You’re illustrating my point here. You’re assuming that everyone fully believes and supports anything in the party platform, especially the most extreme elements.

This absolutely works both ways and erases people in favor of a label.

I talk to a lot of conservatives. While many of them oppose abortion, the issue that sent so many of them over the edge is the lack of willingness of Democrats to agree on a limit. The bulk of opposition is to late term abortions.

The lack of reasonable discourse is what sets extremes in place.

Another example: Tim Scott’s police reform bill that he thought could move forward with bipartisan support. It didn’t solely because Democratic leadership wanted to ensure that it remained an election issue.

We still have no movement on an equivalent bill since Biden took office.

Examples like this make it pretty clear that the party leadership doesn’t actually want to resolve issues.

Allowing the people who benefit from division to keep doing it will only make things worse.

[ilikecakeandpie]

> You’re assuming that everyone fully believes and supports anything in the party platform, especially the most extreme elements.

I think it doesn't matter what one personally believes if they're enabling a party/company/base that mostly campaigns and executes on items that are opposite of their views. Claiming that one is in favor of abortion until a certain limit, but then supporting a party that says none at all is the way to go is pretty off base, yeah?

Also, there's just so much trolling/conversing in bad faith that people don't want to waste their time because they feel it's difficult to have reasonable discourse.

[brightball]

> Claiming that one is in favor of abortion until a certain limit, but then supporting a party that says none at all is the way to go is pretty off base, yeah?

Sure there are people who opposed it entirely, but the majority of what is actually proposed and passed are more focused on defining a cutoff time when the baby is alive with rights of its own. “Heartbeat Bills” are a good example.

There’s a reason you see different laws in different states and it’s because people don’t agree.

You’ll always have people who want to eliminate it entirely and you’ll always have people who want no restrictions at all. That will never change.

Simply trying to agree on a point in time where a fetus has a right to life where termination is unacceptable though, that’s the problem. And politicians don’t want that to change because the moment that the bulk of the charge goes out of an issue they can’t use it to divide people anymore.

If that one issue was off the table, would you reevaluate your party platform? Do you agree with all of it? Do you agree with anything at all on the other side of the isle?

[pjc50]

> opposition is to late term abortions

That's not what's actually happened in legislation though, is it? And there wasn't a huge "late term" abortion problem in the first place, was there? And what are you considering "late term"?

[brightball]

3rd trimester

[pjc50]

Again, barely actually happening: https://drjengunter.com/2016/10/27/how-many-late-term-aborti... and used as a pretext for restricting all abortion by dishonest legislators and advocates.

To the extent that it does happen it's often in situations where the mother's life is in danger, and it was a particularly nasty death in such situation that _finally_ got Ireland to change its constitution.

[s1artibartfast]

>I talk to a lot of conservatives. While many of them oppose abortion, the issue that sent so many of them over the edge is the lack of willingness of Democrats to agree on a limit.

I have found that the vast majority of "pro-life" republicans and "pro-choice" democrats I have spoken with have literally no substantive difference in opinion on abortion law. It is astounding.

Neither group has an actual answer for where the limit should be. Most are uninformed on what the current laws are. Only few outliers are all or nothing, eg life at conception Catholics, or late term abortion radical feminists.

[gruez]

seems like you can pull out this explanation for either side. Just replace "bodily autonomy" issue from "abortions" to "vaccine mandates"

[oceanplexian]

Think of how much of a better world we would live in if everyone respected the individual private choices of others (What drugs you want to consume, what medical procedures you want to take part in, who you are allowed to marry and fall in love with). Unfortunately both the Left and the Right salivate at the thought of using the government's monopoly on violence to control people depending on what they think is for the good of "society".

[tomjen3]

That is my main political issue, but it comes with a major cavaet: where do you put the dividing line between humans? It is not as obvious as you might think, as both sides of the abortion comes down to the rights of the individual.

Same thing, but with opposite supports on a vaccine mandate.

[ninorata]

The left talking about body autonomy in 2021... the irony.

[JohnWhigham]

OP presents a perfectly reasonable statement and your rebuttal is to strawman/argue in bad faith. You are exactly who they are talking about. You are part of the problem.

[ilikecakeandpie]

I'm not arguing in bad faith. I'm stating that it's not unreasonable to want to disassociate from a person who is actively supporting a movement/platform/party that actively works to harm/negatively affect them, especially when it's at a legislative level.

EDIT: Also, to be clear, my original comment was intended for the stat presented that people are saying they wouldn't date someone that voted Republican. I think it's even less unreasonable to not romantically pursue a stranger with political incompatibilities