[brazzy]

I think you're missing the author's point, which is made in the last three paragraphs.

The point is exactly that these diametrically opposed ideologies do not actually exist, but that ideologues often paint their opponents that way.

A typical example is seen among the more extreme pro-choice activists. They frequently make claims like "It's not about protecting babies, they [pro-life people] just want to control women's bodies".

[mcv]

> A typical example is seen among the more extreme pro-choice activists. They frequently make claims like "It's not about protecting babies, they [pro-life people] just want to control women's bodies".

There is actually plenty of evidence for that claim. Some so-called pro-life politicians are not meaningfully pro-life except in their opposition to abortion rights, do not support other measures like sex ed or contraception that would reduce abortions, are fine with letting pregnant women die, and some have even pressured their mistress to have an abortion despite opposing abortion rights politically. Everything points to it being more about denying freedom to women than about actually caring about unborn life.

For some at least. But their number is not small. This can also be seen by the criminalisation of miscarriages, and women being forced to risk their life to bear a dead fetus to term. Those measures are absolutely about controlling women and do nothing to protect unborn life.

In fact, there seems to be an increasing number of issues where especially US Republicans' position seems entirely based on simply opposing whatever the Democrats want on principle. Look at coal rollers; in what kind of world view does that make sense? A few years ago they voted to increase military expenditures above what the military asked for, and the military had no idea what to even do with that money.

[graemep]

That is an ad-hominem in terms of whether abortion should be allowed or not, and to what term it should be allowed.

It may be a reason for not voting for a particular politician (because motivation matters in office). It does not affect - should abortion, or abortion under these circumstances, be allowed.

Also, most people who feel strongly about the issue (i.e. not politicians) do either believe that unborn babies have human rights (most often that they are able to feel pain, respond etc. therefore they have rights) or that fetuses are just clumps of cells. I am not saying there are no exceptions, but there is a very strong correlation between these beliefs and their stance on abortion.

it is striking that anglophone western countries (where the demonising of those who disagree is trongest) tend to either not allowing abortion at all, or having very late term limits (even up to birth) whereas as almost of continental Europe has about 12/13 week limits, a compromise most people think is OK.

> A few years ago they voted to increase military expenditures above what the military asked for, and the military had no idea what to even do with that money.

Given the current state of the world that sounds like they were right!

[mcv]

That's not what an ad-hominem is. An ad-hominem means attacking the person instead of the issue. If I'm saying Trump's economic policies are bad because he's a clown who paints his face orange, that's an ad-hominem and you'd be right to dismiss the argument.

What I did was exactly the opposite: I mentioned specific positions and actions that show that they're not sincere about their stated reasons. But it comes from their own stated actions and positions. And the fact that these have recently become enshrined in law, with quite horrifying consequences, makes this all the more visible and relevant.

> Also, most people who feel strongly about the issue (i.e. not politicians) do either believe that unborn babies have human rights (most often that they are able to feel pain, respond etc. therefore they have rights) or that fetuses are just clumps of cells. I am not saying there are no exceptions, but there is a very strong correlation between these beliefs and their stance on abortion.

Oh, there are many exceptions. In fact, I'm pretty certain the vast majority of people are in between, and almost nobody believes either of those extremes. What people call "clumps of cells" are not fetuses but embryos.

And almost nobody really believes that unborn fetus have the same rights as living persons, because if they did, graveyards would be filled with gravestones of the many embryos and fetuses who died in miscarriages. Miscarriages are still incredibly common, and nobody names them or holds funerals for them. They're not officially recorded as people in any official register. Historically, legally, morally and biblically, personhood has always, always started at birth.

Of course that doesn't mean that people don't care about fetuses at all; obviously they do. Nobody has an abortion just for the heck of it. Even the most ardent pro-choice supporters do care about unborn life, and most do want to reduce the number of abortions. They just don't think the rights of unborn life trumps the rights of living people. They believe people, even women, should have the right to control their own bodies.

The simple fact of the matter is that some anti-abortion laws force women to risk their own lives, and sometimes even force them to die, even when there is no viable fetus anymore. Women have been denied life-saving medical care, have been denied the right to travel while pregnant, and women have died needlessly because of these laws.

And explaining these facts has not helped. The only reasonable conclusion is that the supporters of these laws just want women to suffer. And there is plenty of evidence outside the abortion issue that also supports that.

> it is striking that anglophone western countries (where the demonising of those who disagree is trongest) tend to either not allowing abortion at all, or having very late term limits (even up to birth)

Abortion of a healthy pregnancy during the third trimester is extremely rare. Nobody carries a healthy fetus for half a year and suddenly decides to get rid of it. This is a caricature that's often used to justify the kind of inhuman full abortion bans that kill women, but it's a situation that either doesn't happen or is extremely rare. The issue is that it should be possible to abort a pregnancy that's gone bad, and that women shouldn't go to prison for having a miscarriage. (Almost?) nowhere in Europe will a woman be forced to carry a dead fetus to term, but that has happened in the US.

> Given the current state of the world that sounds like they were right!

Not if there's nothing to sensibly spend it on. There's tons of waste and corruption in the US military, and yet that's the one part of government that seems to be completely exempt from Musk's chainsaw.

[graemep]

Saying an argument is false because some of the people putting it forward have bad motives is absolutely an ad-hominem.

[mcv]

Not when the argument is that they have bad motives. Then it's simply evidence supporting the argument.

[dack]

I think the OP's point is that there are more "dark mirror ideologies" than the author claims, because the author was focused on examples that are too extreme (and therefore rare). The OP is showing that there are more reasonable oppositions that appear to fit the dark mirror definition and are not simply a false accusation.

[larsiusprime]

Author here. I’ll grant “gray mirrors” without a fight. (Ideologies that admit to the same facts but one side just doesn’t care; multiply by zero instead of negative one).

Also note in the article I cop to at least one salient example being real

My main point is not to say dark/gray mirrors don’t exist, just that it should never be your first explanation. Your opponent tends to want things for their reasons, not yours, and the better you understand them the better you can oppose them. That’s it.